WEBSTER 
Speech  in  Reply  to  Hayne. 


ENGLISH  CLASSIC  SERIES.-No.  75. 


SPEECH  IN  REPLY  TO  HAYKE. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE    UNITED   STATES, 
JANUARY  26th,  1830. 


BY   DANIEL   WEBSTER. 


iStOBrnpfjfcal  Sfcctcf)  antt 


NEW  YORK: 

EFFINGHAM  MAYNARD  &  Co.,  PUBLISHERS, 

771  BROADWAY  AND  67  &  69  NINTH  STREET. 


A  COMPLETE  COURSE  IN  THE  STUDY  OF  ENGLISH. 


Spelling,  Language,  Grammar,  Composition,  Literature. 


REED'S  WORD  LESSONS-A  COMPLETE  SPELLER. 
REED'S  INTRODUCTORY  LANGUAGE  WORK. 

REED  &  KELLOGG-S  GRADED  LESSONS  IN  ENGLISH. 
REED  &  KELLOGG'S  HIGHER  LESSONS  IN  ENGLISH. 

REED  &  KELLOGG'S  ONE-BOOK  COURSE  IN  ENGLISH. 
KELLOGG'S  TEXT-BOOK  ON  RHETORIC. 

KELLOGG'S  TEXT-BOOK  ON  ENGLISH  LITERATURE. 


In  the  preparation  of  this  series  the  authors  have  had  one  object 
clearly  in  view — to  so  develop  the  study  of  the  English  language  as 
to  present  a  complete,  progressive  course,  from  the  Spelling-Book  to 
the  study  of  English  Literature.  The  troublesome  contradictions 
which  arise  in  using  books  arranged  by  different  authors  on  these 
subjects,  and  which  require  much  time  for  explanation  in  the  school- 
room, will  be  avoided  by  the  use  of  the  above  "Complete  Course." 

Teachers  are  earnestly  invited  to  examine  these  books. 

EFFINGHAM  MAYNARD  &  Co.,  PUBLISHERS, 

771  Broadway,  New  York. 


COPYRIGHT,  1890, 
BY  EFFINGHAM   MAYNARD  &  -CO. 


355 


LIFE  OF  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

DANIEL  WEBSTER,  one  of  the  greatest  orators  and  statesmen 
that  this  country  ever  produced,  was  born  in  the  town  of  Salis- 
bury (now  known  as  Franklin),  New  Hampshire,  on  the  18th 
of  January,  1782.  His  father,  Ebenezer  Webster,  was  a  distin- 
guished soldier  and  officer  in  the  Revolutionary  War.  After 
the  war,  he  moved  with  his  large  family  into  what  was  then  the 
savage  wilds  of  New  Hampshire.  He  was  a  man  of  little  book- 
learning,  but  with  his  strong  mind  and  vigorous  frame  he  be- 
came a  sort  of  intellectual  leader  in  his  neighborhood.  He  was 
appointed  a  "side-judge"  for  the  county,  a  place  of  considera- 
ble influence  in  those  days.  His  great  aim  was  to  educate  his 
children  to  the  utmost  of  his  limited  ability.  Captain  Webster 
married  Abigail  Eastman  for  a  second  wife.  She  was  a  woman 
of  more  than  ordinary  intellect,  and  possessed  a  force  of  char- 
acter which  was  felt  throughout  the  humble  circle  in  which  she 
moved.  She  was  ambitious  for  her  two  sons,  Ezekiel  and 
Daniel,  that  they  should  excel.  The  distinction  attained  by 
both,  and  especially  by  Daniel,  may  well  be  traced  in  part  to 
her  early  promptings  and  judicious  guidance.  In  the  last  year 
of  the  Revolutionary  War,  in  the  humble  house  which  his 
father  had  built  in  the  woods  on  the  outskirts  of  civilization, 
Daniel  Webster  was  born.  During  his  childhood,  he  was  sickly 
and  delicate,  and  gave  no  promise  of  the  robust  and  vigorous 
frame  which  he  had  in  his  manhood.  It  may  well  be  supposed 
that  his  early  opportunities  for  education  were  very  scanty. 
Because  he  was  frail  and  delicate,  Daniel's  parents  took  great 
pains  to  send  him  to  the  winter  schools,  oftentimes  three  miles 
away  from  home.  As  an  older  half-brother  said,  "  Dan  was 
sent  to  school  that  he  might  get  to  know  as  much  as  the  other 
boys."  It  is  probable  that  the  best  part  of  his  early  education 
was  derived  from  the  judicioiis  and  experienced  father,  and  the 
resolute,  affectionate  and  ambitious  mother.  In  those  davs 
books  were  very  scarce  and  Daniel  eagerly  read  every  book  ho 
could  find.  He  was  fond  of  poetry  and  at  the  age  of  twelve 
could  repeat  from  memory  the  greater  part  of  Watts'  "  Psalms 
and  Hymns."  In  his  "  Autobiography  "  he  says :  "I  remember 
that  my  father  brought  home  from  some  of  the  lower  towns 
Pope's  Essay  on  Man,  published  in  a  sort  of  pamphlet.  I  took 
it,  and  very  soon  could  repeat  it  from  beginning  to  end.  We 
had  so  few  books,  that  to  read  them  once  or  twice  was  nothing. 
AVe  thought  they  were  all  to  be  got  by  heart."  Attl.eage  of 
fourteen,  he  was  sent  to  Phillips  Academy,  in  Exeter,  N.  H.. 
\>ut  remained  only  nine  months  on  account  of  the  poverty  01 

3 


4  LIFE  OF   DANIEL   WEBSTER. 

the  family.  The  future  orator  found  his  greatest  trouble  at 
Exeter  in  declaiming.  "Many  a  piece,"  says  Webster  "did 
I  commit  to  memory,  and  recite  and  rehearse,  in  my  own 
room,  over  and  over  again ;  yet  when  the  day  came,  when  the 
school  collected  to  hear  declamations,  when  my  name  was 
called,  and  I  saw  all  eyes  turned  to  my  seat,  I  could  not  raise 
myself  from  it.  When  the  occasion  was  over,  I  went  home 
and  wept  bitter  tears  of  mortification."  He  now  studied  with 
a  clergyman  at  home  and  entered  Dartmouth  College  in  1797. 
The  familiar  story  of  how  young  Webster  "worked  his  way" 
through  college  and  the  self-denial  and  rigid  economy  he  exer- 
cised is  told  in  his  "Autobiography."  After  graduation,  hard 
pushed  for  money  while  studying  law,  how  he  took  charge  of 
an  academy  at  Fryeburg,  Maine,  for  one  dollar  a  day.  He  paid 
his  board  by  copying  deeds  and  sent  his  spare  money  to  help 
his  brother  Ezekiel  through  Dartmouth.  Webster  was  admit- 
ted to  the  bar  in  1805,  began  practice  in  Boscawen,  and  after- 
wards in  Portsmouth.  He  took  a  high  rank  in  his  profession 
at  once,  and,  in  1812,  was  elected  a  member  of  Congress.  In 
1816,  he  declined  a  re-election  and  removed  to  Boston.  In  the 
next  seven  years  he  worked  long  and  hard  in  his  profession  and 
soon  established  his  reputation  as  one  of  the  ablest  lawyers  of 
the  land.  In  1822  he  was  again  sent  to  Congress  and  in  1828  he 
was  chosen  a  Senator.  He  remained  in  the  Senate  for  twelve 
years,  when  he  was  appointed  Secretary  of  State  by  President 
Harrison.  In  1845  he  returned  to  the  Senate,  and  remained 
until  1850,  when  he  became  Secretary  of  State  under  President 
Fillmore.  He  resigned  his  office  early  in  1852  on  account  of  his 
health  and  retired  to  his  home  by  the  seaside  at  Marshfield, 
Mass.,  where  he  died  October  24  of  the  same  year. 

Daniel  Webster  is  universally  acknowledged  to  be  the  fore- 
most of  constitutional  lawyers  and  of  parliamentary  debaters, 
and  without  a  peer  in  the  highest  realms  of  classic  and  patriotic 
oratory.  Many  of  his  orations,  as  the  famous  Bunker  Hill 
Monument  orations,  the  eulogy  upon  Adams  and  Jefferson,  the 
speech  upon  the  trial  of  the  murderers  of  Capt.  Joseph  White, 
the  "  Reply  to  Hayne,  "  and  others  are  universally  accepted  as 
classics  in  modern  oratory.  Physically,  Webster  was  a  mag- 
nificent specimen  of  a  man.  Such  a  form,  such  a  face,  such  a 
presence,  are  rarely  given  to  any  man.  Webster's  manner  had 
a  wonderful  impressiveness  that  intimacy  never  wore  off.  His 
gracious  bearing  and  gentle  courtesy  made  him  the  delight  of 
every  person  he  ever  met.  His  oratory  was  in  perfect  keeping 
with  the  man,  gracious,  logical,  majestic,  and  often  sublime. 
He  was  by  nature  free,  generous  and  lavish  in  his  manner  of 
living.  As  a  result  his  own  private  finances  were  often  much 
embarrassed.  His  wealthy  admirers  often  tided  him  over  his 
financial  straits.  Hampered  as  he  was  financially,  he  never 
sullied  his  great  fame  or  enriched  himself  or  others  by  political 
Jobbery. 


INTRODUCTION. 

To  understand  fully  the  character  and  importance  of  the  Great 
Debate,  as  it  was  called  in  the  newspapers  of  the  day,  something 
should  be  known  of  the  circumstances  that  immediately  preceded 
and  accompanied  it,  and  of  the  more  distinguished  persons  who 
participated  in  it. 

It  commenced  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  in  the 
month  of  January,  1830,  during  the  first  session  of  the  Twenty- 
first  Congress,  and  in  the  first  year  of  the  administration  of 
Andrew  Jackson;  and  lasted,  with  occasional  but  brief  interrup- 
tions, four  mouths. 

Contemporaneous  authority  gives  encouragement  to  a  suspicion 
that  previous  to  the  introduction  of  Foote's  resolutions  respecting 
the  public  lands,  it  had  been  determined  by  the  leaders  of  the 
Jackson  party  to  organize  a  crusade  against  Mr.  Webster.  The 
subsidized  presses  of  the  party  were  most  violent  in  their  abuse  of 
his  character,  his  history,  and  conduct.  To  revolutionize  New 
England,  too,  was  a  purpose  they  meditated  and  avowed;  and, 
preparatory  to  its  accomplishment,  the  overthrow  of  Mr,  Webster 
seemed  necessary. 

Whether  such  conspiracy  was  ever  matured  or  not,  one  fact  is 
incontestable — that  the  nearest  and  most  powerful  friends  of  both 
the  Vice-President  and  Secretary  of  State  simultaneously  attacked 
Mr.  Webster,  giving  by  the  act  to  the  world  all  the  ordinary 
evidence  of  preconcerted  purpose.  It  was  a  combination  of  great 
power,  from  the  character  and  position  of  the  parties  who  com- 
posed it.  They  were  all  men  of  ability  and  reputation. 

Benton  discharged  all  sorts  of  missiles  at  the  head  of  an  adver- 
sary, like  a  catapult.  Tropes,  metaphors,  similes,  unsavory 
allusions,  vituperative  epithets,  damnatory  personalities,  he  hurled 
upon  the  victim  of  his  temporary  anger.  He  neither  sought  nor 
gave  quarter — one  of  the  regular  Black  Hussars  of  debate.  His 
manner,  if  possible,  was  jret  more  excited  than  his  language,  and 
his  voice  more  belligerent  than  either.  His  whole  attitude  was 
defiance,  and  each  gesture  a  provocation.  On  this  occasion  he 

5 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

headed  the  assault  upon  Mr.  Webster,  or  at  least  upon  New 
England.  And  it  is  not  improbable  that  Mr.  Webster  had  him  in 
view  when,  in  his  second  speech,  he  spoke  of  "casting  the 
characters  of  the  drama,  assigning  to  each  his  part;  to  one  the 
attack,  to  another  the  cry  of  onset:"  a  supposition  the  more 
likely,  as  Mr.  Benton  in  his  speech  justified  the  suspicion  that  an 
onslaught  upon  New  England  and  New  England  men  had  been 
premeditated  before  the  introduction  of  this  debate. 

Hayne  dashed  into  debate,  like  the  Mameluke  cavalry  upon  a 
charge.  There  was  a  gallant  air  about  him,  that  could  not  but 
win  admiration.  He  never  provided  for  retreat;  he  never  imagined 
it.  He  had  an  invincible  confidence  in  himself,  which  arose 
partly  from  constitutional  temperament,  partly  from  previous 
success.  His  oratory  was  graceful  and  persuasive.  An  impas- 
sioned manner,  somewhat  vehement  at  times,  but  rarely  if  ever 
extravagant;  a  voice  well  modulated  and  clear;  a  distinct,  though 
rapid  enunciation;  a  confident,  but  not  often  offensive  address: 
these,  accompanying  and  illustrating  language  well  selected  and 
periods  well  turned,  made  him  a  popular  and  effective  speaker. 

Colonel  Hayne  was,  incontestably,  the  most  formidable  of  Mr. 
Webster's  opponents.  He  had  more  native  and  acquired  ability 
than  any  of  them.  Such  is  the  concurrent  opinion  of  all  who 
witnessed  this  great  forensic  contest;  among  others,  of  the  Hon. 
Mr.  Everett  of  Massachusetts. 

Such  was  the  formidable  character  of  the  combination  Mr. 
Webster  found  himself  compelled  by  circumstances  to  meet. 
Never  before,  in  Parliamentary  annals,  did  one  man  encounter 
such  fearful  odds.  The  whole  moral  influence  of  the  adminis- 
tration was  directed  against  Mr.  Webster.  This,  powerful  at  all 
times,  was  doubly  so  now. 

But  it  is  due  the  memory  of  the  distinguished  patriot,  soldier, 
and  statesman,  Gen.  Jackson,  to  say,  that  he  never  entertained 
towards  Mr.  Webster  any  of  that  vehemence  of  personal  bitter- 
ness which  he  sometimes  exhibited  towards  his  opponents.  He 
was  of  too.  magnanimous  character  to  hate  a  magnanimous  foe. 
Mr.  Webster  never  flattered,  deceived,  or  abused  him  ;  never 
opposed  his  measures,  but  in  an  honorable  manner,  and  with 
respectful  language. 

On  the  29th  day  of  December,  1829,  Mr.  Foote  of  Connecticut 
offered  his  resolution  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

Some  skirmishing  immediately  occurred  between  Benton, 
Noble,  Woodbury,  Holmes,  and  Foote;  but  no  one  imagined  it. 
was  soon  to  be  followed  by  a  regular  engagement.  A  motion 
being  made  and  carried  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the 
resolution  till  the  next  Monday,  the  excitement  for  the  time  sub- 
sided. When  it  next  came  up  for  consideration,  on  Monday,  the 
18th,  Mr.  Benton  took  the  floor  and  made  a  speech  bearing  evident 
indications  of  study  and  preparation.  In  the  course  of  his 
remarks  he  made  a  violent  attack  upon  New  England,  its  men 
and  institutions.  He  denounced  the  policy  of  New  England 
towards  the  West  as  illiberal  and  unjust,  but  extolled  the  gener- 
osity of  the  South.  "The  West  must  still  look,"  he  said,  "to 
the  solid  phalanx  of  the  South  for  succor." 

He  was  followed  by  Colonel  Hayne,  who,  after  returning  his 
complimentary  salute,  "The  South  would  always  sympathize  with 
the  West,"  poured  also  a  broadside  into  New  England. 

The  suddenness  of  this  attack  upon  New  England,  its  warmth 
and  evident  malice,  took  Mr.  Webster  by  surprise.  He  was  not 
even  aware  of  Mr.  Foote's  intention  to  introduce  any  such  resolu- 
tion; but  yet  he  could  see  no  harm  in  its  terms  or  purpose,  nor 
impropriety  in  its  introduction. 

As  soon  as  Colonel  Hayne  concluded  his  speech,  Mr.  Webster 
took  the  floor  in  reply.  It  was  late,  however,  in  the  day,  and  he 
gave  way  on  a  motion  from  Mr.  Benton  to  adjourn.  The  next 
day  Mr.  Webster  replied  to  the  speech  of  Colonel  Hayne.  The 
growing  interest  of  the  controversy  attracted  a  more  than  usuat 
crowd  to  the  Senate.  It  appeared  evident  to  every  one  a  drama 
of  some  importance  was  going  on. 

On  Tuesday,  January  21st,  the  day  after  Mr.  Webster's 
speech,  the  Senate  resumed  again  the  consideration  of  Mr. 
Foote's  resolution. 

Before  the  debate  recommenced,  Mr.  Chambers  of  Maryland 
rose  and  expressed  a  hope  that  the  Senate  would  consent  to  postpone 
further  consideration  of  the  resolution  till  the  Monday  following, 
as  Mr.  Webster,  who  had  taken  part  in  it  and  wished  to  be  present 
at  its  continued  discussion,  had  unavoidable  engagements  else- 
where. 

There  was  a  case  of  some  importance  on  argument  before  the 
Supreme  Court  in  which  Mr.  Webster  was  retained  as  counsel. 
Compelled  to  watch  its  progress,  for  he  knew  not  at  what  moment 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

he  might  be  called  upon  to  address  the  Bench,  he  had  not  been 
able  to  command  more  than  an  occasional  presence  in  the  Senate. 
He  was  not  present  when  the  resolution  was  introduced,  nor 
.more  than  a  fractional  portion  of  the  time  while  Mr.  Benton 
spoke. 

The  request  was  denied  him.  Colonel  Hayne  rose  in  evident 
agitation,  and  insisted  that  the  debate  should  go  on  without  post- 
ponement. He  said,  with  some  superciliousness  of  manner  and 
with  an  angry  intonation  of  voice,  that  he  saw  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  in  his  seat,  and  presumed,  if  he  really  desired  it, 
he  could  make  an  arrangement  which  would  enable  him  to  be 
present  at  the  discussion  that  day.  He  would  not  consent  that  the 
subject  should  be  postponed,  until  he  had  had  an  opportunity  of 
replying  to  some  of  the  observations  which  had  fallen  from  the 
gentleman  the  day  before.  Putting  his  hand  to  his  heart,  he 
said  "  he  bad  something  there  which  he  wished  to  get  rid  of. 
The  gentleman  had  discharged  his  fire  in  the  face  of  the  Senate, 
and  he  demanded  an  opportunity  of  returning  the  shot." 

"Then  it  was,"  to  use  the  words  of  a  distinguished  member  of 
Congress  from  a  Southern  State,  who  was  present  on  the  occasion, 
"  that  Mr.  Webster's  person  seemed  to  become  taller  and  bigger. 
His  chest  expanded  nnd  his  eyeballs  dilated.  Folding  his  arms 
in  a  composed,  firm,  and  most  expressive  manner,  he  exclaimed: 
'  Let  the  discussion  proceed.  I  am  ready.  I  am  ready  now  to 
receive  the  gentleman's  fire.'  " 

Mr.  Benton,  who  had  gained  the  floor  the  day  previous  on  the 
conclusion  of  Mr.  Webster's  remarks,  then  rose  and  addressed 
the  Senate  for  an  hour. 

The  warm  blood  of  Colonel  Hayne  could  not  brook  the  post- 
ponement of  vengeance.  He  besought  his  friend  from  Missouri 
to  yield  the  floor  while  he  replied  to  the  Senator  from  Massachu- 
setts. Mr.  Benton  gave  a  cheerful  assent. 

Colonel  Hayne  then  rose  and  entered  upon  his  speech.  His 
exordium  was  respectable  in  point  of  ability,  and  gave  assurance 
of  a  well- prepared  speech.  Every  one  must  judge  of  it  for  him- 
self. The  high  estimate  that  had  previously  been  formed  of  his 
talents  and  character  disposed  the  Senate  and  audience  to  listen 
attentively;  and  there  was  much  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  speech 
particularly  to  confirm  the  common  opinion  of  his  abilities  and  to 
command  attention. 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

As  he  proceeded,  bis  tone  and  language  became  more  vehe- 
ment, his  allusions  more  personal.  There  was  an  angry  inflection 
in  his  voice,  indicative  of  loss  of  temper.  His  bearing  betrayed  a 
good  deal  of  self-confidence,  at  times  almost  arrogance.  He 
seemed  certain  of  victory,  and  only  doubtful  how  much  of  his 
strength  be  should  put  forth. 

Sympathizing  and  exulting  friends  surrounded  him,  from 
whose  countenances  he  read  the  apparent  success  of  his  philippic. 
They  urged  him  on  with  looks  and  encouraging  words.  The  eye 
of  the  Vice-President,  which  alone  of  his  features  ever  indicated 
an  emotion,  shone  approvingly.  Nor  did  he  confine  his  assistance 
to  a  glance  of  approbation.  Constantly  duiiug  the  progress  of  the 
discussion  he  sent  notes,  suggestive,  illustrative,  and  advisatory,  to 
the  orator,  by  one  of  the  pages  of  the  Senate. 

Colonel  Hayne  spoke  this  day,  Thursday,  January  21st,  a  little 
more  than  an  hour.  The  Senate  then  adjourned  over  till  Monday 
following. 

The  town  was  full  of  excitement.  The  severe  nature  of  Colonel 
Hayne's  attack,  the  ability  with  which  it  was  conducted,  his  great 
reputation,  the  eminence  of  the  combatants,  and  the  doubtful 
issue  of  the  contest  afforded  ample  scope  for  various  discussion. 
The  friends  of  Colonel  Hayne  were  much  elated  at  what  they 
considered  his  brilliant  debut,  and  confidently  predicted  his  ulti- 
mate triumph.  Mr.  Webster's  friends  doubted  and  hoped. 

It  was  not  alone  the  combined  strength  of  the  administration 
party  in  the  Senate  Mr.  Webster  had  to  fear.  He  could  not  but 
be  in  doubt  respecting  his  political  allies.  To  make  the  argument 
which  should  satisfy  all  without  offending  either  of  these  classes 
seemed  a  task  difficult  to  be  accomplished. 

Fortunately  for  the  country  and  his  own  fame,  his  doubts  on 
the  subject  were  removed.  His  warmest  friends  urged  with 
great  eagerness  upon  him  an  unequivocal,  unreserved  declaration 
of  his  views.  None  were  more  trusted,  nor  esteemed  by  him 
than  Samuel  Bell,  then  a  Senator  from  New  Hampshire. 

On  the  morning  of  the  speech,  after  he  had  gone  to  the  Capitol, 
he  called  Mr.  Bell  into  the  robing-room  of  the  Senate,  and  told 
him  his  difficulty.  "  You  know,  Mr.  Bell,"  said  he,  "  my  con- 
stitutional opim'ons.  There  are  among  my  friends  in  the  Senate 
some  who  may  not  concur  in  them.  What  is  expedient  to  be  done?" 
Mr.  Bell,  with  great  emphasis  of  manner,  advised  him  to  speak 


10  INTRODUCTION 

out,  boldly  and  fully,  bis  thoughts  upon,  the  subject.  "It  is  a 
critical  moment,"  said  he,  "  and  it  is  time — it  is  high  time  the 
people  of  this  country  should  know  what  this  Constitution  is." 
"  Then, "replied  Mr.  Webster,  "by  the  blessing  of  Heaven,  they 
shall  learn,  this  day,  before  the  sun  goes  down,  what  I  understand 
•it  to  be." 

It  was  on  Tuesday,  January  the  26tb,  1830,  a  day  to  be  here- 
after forever  memorable  in  Senatorial  annals,  that  the  Senate 
resumed  the  consideration  of  Foote's  Resolution.  There  never 
was  before  in  the  city  an  occasion  of  so  much  excitement.  To 
witness  this  great  intellectual  contest  multitudes  of  strangers  had 
for  two  or  three  days  previous  been  rushing  into  the  city,  and  the 
hotels  overflowed.  As  early  as  nine  o'clock  of  this  morning 
crowds  poured  into  the  Capitol  in  hot  haste;  at  twelve  o'clock— 
the  hour  of  meeting — the  Senate  Chamber,  its  galleries,  floor,  and 
even  lobbies  was  filled  to  its  utmost  capacity.  The  very  stairways 
were  dark  with  men,  who  hung  on  to  one  another,  like  bees  in  a 
swarm. 

The  House  of  Representatives  was  early  deserted.  An  adjourn- 
ment would  have  hardly  made  it  emptier.  The  Speaker,  it  is 
true,  retained  his  chair,  but  no  business  of  moment  was  or  could 
be  attended  to.  Members  all  rushed  in  to  hear  Mr.  Webster,  and 
no  call  of  the  House  or  other  Parliamentary  proceedings  could 
compel  them  back.  The  floor  of  the  Senate  was  so  densely 
crowded,  that  persons  once  in  could  not  get  out,  nor  change  their 
position;  in  the  rear  of  the  Vice-Presidential  chair  the  crowd  was 
particularly  intense. 

Mr.  Webster  perceived,  and  felt  equal  to,  the  destinies  of  the 
moment.  The  very  greatness  of  the  hazard  exhilarated  him. 
His  spirits  rose  with  the  occasion.  He  awaited  the  time  of  onset 
with  a  stern  and  impatient  joy. 

A  confidence  in  his  own  resources,  springing  from  no  vain 
estimate  of  his  power,  but  the  legitimate  offspring  of  previous 
severe  mental  discipline,  sustained  and  excited  him.  He  had 
gauged  his  opponents,  his  subject,  and  himself. 

He  was  too,  at  this  period,  in  the  very  prime  of  manhood.  He 
had  reached  middle  age — an  era  in  the  life  of  man  when  the 
faculties,  physical  or  intellectual  may  be  supposed  to  attain  their 
fullest  organization  and  most  perfect  development.  Whatever 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

there  was  in  him  of  intellectual  energy  and  vitality,  the  occasion, 
his  full  life  and  high  ambition,  might  well  bring  forth. 

He  never  rose  on  an  ordinary  occasion  to  address  an  ordinary 
audience  more  self-possessed.  There  was  no  tremulousness  in  his 
voice,  or  manner:  nothing  hurried,  nothing  simulated.  The  calm- 
ness of  superior  strength  was  visible  everywhere— in  countenance, 
voice,  and  bearing.  A  deep-seated  conviction  of  the  extraordinary 
character  of  the  emergency,  and  of  his  ability  to  control  it,  seemed 
to  possess  him  wholly.  If  an  observer,  more  than  ordinarily 
keen-sighted,  detected  at  times  something  like  exultation  in  his 
eye,  he  presumed  that  it  sprang  from  the  excitement  of  the 
moment  and  the  anticipation  of  victory. 

The  anxiety  to  hear  the  speech  was  so  intense,  irrepressible  and 
universal,  that  no  sooner  had  the  Vice  President  assumed  the 
chair  than  a  motion  was  made  and  unanimously  earned,  to  postpone 
the  ordinary  preliminaries  cf  Senatorial  action,  and  to  take  up 
immediately  the  consideration  of  the  resolution. 

No  one  who  was  not  present  can  understand  the  excitement  of 
the  scene;  no  one,  who  was,  can  give  an  adequate  description  of 
it.  No  word-painting  can  convey  the  deep,  intense  enthusiasm, 
the  reverential  attention,  of  that  vast  assembly;  nor  limner  trans- 
fer to  canvas  their  earnest,  eager,  awe-struck  countenances. 
Though  language  were  as  subtile  and  flexible  as  thought,  it  still 
would  be  impossible  to  represent  the  full  idea  of  the  scene.  There 
is  something  intangible  in  an  emotion  which  cannot  be  trans- 
ferred. The  nicer  shades  of  feeling  elude  pursuit.  Every 
description,  therefore,  of  the  occasion  seems  to  the  narrator  him- 
self most  tame,  spiritless,  unjust. 

Much  of  the  instantaneous  effect  of  the  speech  arose,  of  course, 
from  the  orator's  delivery — the  tones  of  his  voice,  his  countenance 
and  manner. 

The  variety  of  incident  during  the  speech,  and  the  rapid 
fluctuation  of  passions,  kept  the  audience  in  continual  expectation 
and  ceaseless  agitation.  There  was  no  chord  of  the  heart  the 
orator  did  not  strike,  as  with  a  master-hand.  The  speech  was  a 
complete  drama  of  comic  and  pathetic  scenes,  one  varied  excite- 
ment—laughter  and  tears  gaining  alternate  victory. 

A  great  portion  of  the  spcecli  is  strictly  argumentative— an 
exposition  of  constitutional  law.  But  grave  as  such  portion 
necessarily  is,  severely  logical,  abounding  in  no  fancy  or  episode, 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

it  engrossed  throughout  the  undivided  attention  of  every  intelligent 
hearer.  Abstractions,  under  the  glowing  genius  of  the  orator, 
acquired  a  beauty,  a  vitality,  a  power  to  thrill  the  blood  and 
enkindle  the  affections,  awaking  into  earnest  activity  many  a 
dormant  faculty.  His  ponderous  syllables  had  an  energy,  a 
vehemence  of  meaning  in  them,  that  fascinated  while  they 
startled. 

The  swell  and  roll  of  his  voice  struck  upon  the  ears  of  the 
spell-bound  audience  in  deep  and  melodious  cadence,  as  waves 
upon  the  "  far-resounding"  sea.  The  Miltonic  grandeur  of  his 
words  was  the  fit  expression  of  his  thought,  and  raised  his 
hearers  up  to  his  theme. 

The  speech  was  over,  but  the  tones,  of  the  orator  still  lingered 
upon  the  ear,  and  the  audience,  unconscious  of  the  close,  re- 
tained their  position.  The  agitated  countenance,  the  heaving 
breast,  the  suffused  eye,  attested  the  continued  influence  of  the 
spell  upon  them.  Hands  that  in  the  excitement  of  the  moment 
had  sought  each  other,  still  remained  closed  in  an  unconscious 
grasp.  Eye  still  turned  to  eye,  to  receive  and  repay  mutual 
sympathy;  and  everywhere  around  seemed  forgelfuluess  of  all  but 
the  orator's  presence  and  words. 

The  New  England  men  walked  down  Pennsylvania  Avenue 
that  day,  after  the  speech,  with  a  firmer  step  and  bolder  air— 
"pride  in  their  port,  defiance  in  their  eye."  You  would  have 
sworn  they  had  grown  some  inches  taller  in  a  few  hours'  time. 
They  devoured  the  way  in  their  stride.  They  looked  every  one 
in  the  face  they  met,  fearing  no  contradiction.  They  swarmed  in 
the  streets,  having  become  miraculously  multitudinous.  They 
clustered  in  parties,  and  fought  the  scene  over  one  hundred  times 
that  night.  Their  elation  was  the  greater  by  reaction.  It  knew 
no  limits  or  choice  of  expression.  Not  one  of  them  but  felt  he 
had  gained  a  personal  victory;  not  one  who  was  not  ready  to 
exclaim,  with  gushing  eyes,  in  the  fullness  of  gratitude,  "  Thank 
God  I  too  am  a  Yankee!" 

C.  W.  MARCH — Webster  and  Ms  Contemporaries. 

The  foregoing  introduction  condensed  from  Mr.  March's  book  will  prove 
interesting  as  giving  an  eye-witness's  account  of  incidents  in  the  great 
debate. 


REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 

SPEECH  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  ON  FOOTE'S  RESO- 
LUTION, ON  THE  26TH  OF  JANUARY,  1830. 

X"  MR.  PRESIDENT  : — When  the  mariner  has  been  tossed  for 

/  many  days  in  thick  weather,  and  on  an  unknown  sea,  he  natu- 

/    rally  avails  himself  of  the  first  pause  in  the  storm,  the  earliest 

/     glance  of  the  sun,  to  take  his  latitude,  and  ascertain  how  far 

the  elements  have  driven  him  from  his  true  course.    Let  us 

imitate  this  prudence,  and,  before  we  float  farther  on  the 

V     waves  of  this  debate,  refer  to  the  point  from  which  we  de- 

^  parted,  that  we  may  at  least  be  able  to  conjecture  where  we 

now  are.     I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  resolution. 

The  secretary  read  the  resolution,  as  follows  : 
"  Resolved,  That  the  committee  on  public  lands  be  instructed 
to  inquire  and  report  the  quantity  of  public  lands  remaining 
unsold  within  each  State  and  Territory,  and  whether  it  be  ex- 
pedient to  limit  for  a  certain  period  the  sales  of  the  public 
lands  to  such  lands  only  as  have  heretofore  been  offered  for 
sale,  and  are  now  subject  to  entry  at  the  minimum  price.  And, 
also,  whether  the  office  of  surveyor-general,  and  some  of  the 
land  offices,  may  not  be  abolished  without  detriment  to  the 
public  interest ;  or  whether  it  be  expedient  to  adopt  measures 
to  hasten  the  sales  and  extend  more  rapidly  the  surveys  of 
the  public  lands." 

We  have  thus  heard,  sir,  what  the  resolution  is  which  is 
actually  before  us  for  consideration  ;  and  it  will  readily  occur 
to  every  one,  that  it  is  almost  the  only  subject  about  which 
something  has  not  been  said  in  the  speech,  running  through 
two  days,  by  which  the  senate  has  been  now  entertained  by 
the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina.  Every  topic  in  the  wiae 
range  of  our  public  affairs,  whether  past  or  present — every- 
thing, general  or  local,  whether  belonging  to  national  politics 

13 


14  SPEECH   IN   REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

or  party  politics— seems  to  have  attracted  more  or  less  of  the 
honorable  member's  attention,  save  only  the  resolution  before 
the  senate.  He  has  spoken  of  everything  but  the  public  lands; 
they  have  escaped  his  notice.  To  that  subject,  in  all  his  ex- 
cursions, he  has  not  paid  even  the  cold  respect  of  a  passing 
glance. 

When  this  debate,  sir,  was  to  be  resumed,  on  Thursday 
morning,  it  so  happened  that  it  would  have  been  convenient 
for  me  to  be  elsewhere.  The  honorable  member,  however,  did 
not  incline  to  put  off  the  discussion  to  another  day.  He  had 
a  shot,  he  said,  to  return,  and  he  wished  to  discharge  it. 
That  shot,  sir,  which  it  was  kind  thus  to  inform  us  was  com- 
ing, that  we  might  stand  out  of  the  way.  or  prepare  ourselves 
to  fall  before  it  and  die  with  decency,  has  now  been  received. 
Under  all  advantages,  and  with  expectation  awakened  by  the 
tone  which  preceded  it,  it  has  been  discharged,  and  has  spent 
its  force.  It  may  become  me  to  say  no  more  of  its  effect,  than 
that,  if  nobody  is  found,  after  all,  either  killed  or  wounded  by 
it,  it  is  not  the  first  time,  in  the  history  of  human  affairs,  that 
the  vigor  and  success  of  the  war  have  not  quite  come  up  to 
the  lofty  and  sounding  phrase  of  the  manifesto. 

The  gentleman,  sir,  in  declining  to  postpone  the  debate, 
told  the  senate,  with  the  emphasis  of  his  hand  upon  his  heart, 
that  there  was  something  rankling  here,  which  he  wished  to 
relieve. 

[Mr.  Hayne  rose  and  disclaimed  having  used  the  word  rank- 
ling.] 

It  would  not,  sir,  be  safe  for  the  honorable  member  to 
appeal  to  those  around  him,  upon  the  question  whether  he 
did  in  fact  make  use  of  that  word.  But  he  may  have  been 
unconscious  of  it.  At  any  rate,  it  is  enough  that  he  disclaims 
it.  But  still,  with  or  without  the  use  of  that  particular  word, 
he  had  yet  something  here,  he  said,  of  which  he  wished  to  rid 
himself  by  an  immediate  reply.  In  this  respect,  sir,  I  have  a 
great  advantage  over  the  honorable  gentleman.  There  is 
nothing  Jiere,  sir,  which  gives  me  the  slightest  uneasiness  ; 
neither  fear,  nor  anger,  nor  that  which  is  sometimes  more 
troublesome  than  either,  the  consciousness  of  having  been  in 


SPEECH    IN   REPLY    TO    HAYNE.  15 

the  wrong.  There  is  nothing,  either  originating  here,  or  now 
received  here  by  the  gentleman's  shot.  Nothing  original ;  for 
I  had  not  the  slightest  feeling  of  disrespect  or  unkindness 
toward  the  honorable  member.  Some  passages,  it  is  true,  had 
occurred  since  our  acquaintance  in  this  body,  which  I  could 
have  wished  might  have  been  otherwise  ;  but  I  had  used  phil- 
osophy and  forgotten  them.  When  the  honorable  member 
rose  in  his  first  speech,  I  paid  him  the  respect  of  attentive  lis- 
tening ;  and  when  he  sat  down,  though  surprised,  and  I  must 
say  even  astonished,  at  some  of  his  opinions,  nothing  was  far- 
ther from  my  intention  than  to  commence  any  personal  war- 
fare. And  through  the  whole  of  the  few  remarks  I  made  in 
answer,  I  avoided,  studiously  and  carefully,  everything  which 
I  thought  possible  to  be  construed  into  disrespect.  And,  sir, 
while  there  is  thus  nothing  originating  here  which  I  wished  at 
any  time,  or  now  wish,  to  discharge,  I  must  repeat  also,  that 
nothing  has  been  received  here  which  rankles,  or  in  any  way 
gives  me  annoyance.  I  will  not  accuse  the  honorable  member 
of  violating  the  rules  of  civilized  war  ;  I  will  not  say  that  he 
poisoned  his  arrows.  But  whether  his  shafts  were,  or  were 
not,  dipped  in  that  which  would  have  caused  rankling  if  they 
had  reached,  there  was  not  as  it  happened,  quite  strength 
enough  in  the  bow  to  bring  them  to  their  mark.  If  he  wishes 
now  to  gather  up  those  shafts,  he  must  look  for  them  else- 
where ;  they  will  not  be  found  fixed  and  quivering  in  the  object 
at  which  they  were  aimed. 

The  honorable  member  complained  that  I  had  slept  on  his 
speech.  I  must  have  slept  on  it,  or  not  slept  at  all.  •  The  mo- 
ment the  honorable  member  sat  down,  his  friend  from  Missouri 
rose,  and,  with  much  honeyed  commendation  of  the  speech, 
suggested  that  the  impressions  which  it  had  produced  were  too 
charming  and  delightful  to  be  disturbed  by  other  sentiments 
or  other  sounds,  and  proposed  that  the  senate  should  adjourn. 
Would  it  have  been  quite  amiable  in  me,  sir,  to  interrupt  this 
excellent  good  feeling  ?  Must  I  not  have  been  absolutely  ma- 
licious, if  I  could  have  thrust  myself  forward,  to  destroy  sen- 
sations thus  pleasing?  Was  it  not  much  better  and  kinder, 
both  to  sleep  upon  them  myself,  and  to  allow  others  also  the 


16  SPEECH   IN   KEPLY   TO    HATNE. 

pleasure  of  sleeping  upon  them  ?  But  if  it  be  meant,  by 
sleeping  upon  his  speech,  that  I  took  time  to  prepare  a  reply 
to  it,  it  is  quite  a  mistake.  Owing  to  other  engagements,  I 
could  not  employ  even  the  interval  between  the  adjournment 
of  the  senate  and  its  meeting  the  next  morning,  in  attention 
to  the  subject  of  this  debate.  Nevertheless,  sir,  the  mere 
matter  of  fact  is  undoubtedly  true.  I  did  sleep  on  the  gentle- 
man's speech,  and  slept  soundly.  And  I  slept  equally  well  on 
his  speech  of  yesterday,  to  which  I  am  now  replying.  It  is 
quite  possible  that  in  this  respect,  also,  I  possess  some  advan- 
tage over  the  honorable  member,  attributable,  doubtless,  to  a 
cooler  temperament  on  my  part ;  for,  in  truth,  I  slept  upon 
his  speeches  remarkably  well. 

But  the  gentleman  inquires  why  he  was  made  the  object  of 
such  a  reply.  Why  was  he  singled  out?  If  an  attack  has 
been  made  on  the  East,  he,  he  assures  us,  did  not  begin  it ;  it 
was  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Missouri.  Sir,  I  answered 
the  gentleman's  speech  because  I  happened  to  hear  it ;  and 
because,  also,  I  chose  to  give  an  answer  to  that  speech,  which, 
if  unanswered,  I  thought  most  likely  to  produce  injurious 
impressions.  I  did  not  stop  to  inquire  who  was  the  original 
drawer  of  the  bill.  I  found  a  responsible  endorser  before  me, 
and  it  was  my  purpose  to  hold  him  liable,  and  to  bring  him  to 
his  just  responsibility,  without  delay.  But,  sir,  this  interrog- 
atory of  the  honorable  member  was  only  introductory  to 
another.  He  proceeded  to  ask  me  whether  I  had  turned  ^.ipon 
him,  in  this  debate,  from  the  consciousness  that  I  should  find 
an  overmatch,  if  I  ventured  on  a  contest  with  his  friend  from 
Missouri.  If,  sir,  the  honorable  member,  ex  gratia  modestice, 
had  chosen  thus  to  defer  to  his  friend,  and  to  pay  him  a  com- 
pliment, without  intentional  disparagement  to  others,  it  would 
have  been  quite  according  to  the  friendly  courtesies  of  debate, 
and  not  at  all  ungrateful  to  my  own  feelings.  I  am  not  one 
of  those,  sir,  who  esteem  any  tribute  of  regard,  whether  light 
and  occasional,  or  more  serious  and  deliberate,  which  may  be 
bestowed  on  others,  as  so  much  unjustly  withholden  from 
themselves.  Bnt  the  tone  and  manner  of  the  gentleman's 
question  forbid  me  thus  to  interpret  it.  I  am  not  at  liberty 


SPEECH    IN    REPLY   TO    HAYNE.  17 

to  consider  it  as  nothing  more  than  a  civility  to  his  friend.  It 
had  an  air  of  taunt  and  disparagement,  something  of  the 
loftiness  of  asserted  superiority,  which  does  not  allow  me  to 
pass  it  over  without  notice.  It  was  put  as  a  question  forme  to 
answer,  and  so  put  as  if  it  were  difficult  for  me  to  answer, 
whether  I  deemed  the  member  from  Missouri  an  overmatch 
for  myself,  in  debate  here.  It  seems  to  me,  sir,  that  this  is 
extraordinary  language,  and  an  extraordinary  tone,  for  the 
discussions  of  this  body. 

Matches  and  overmatches !  Those  terms  are  more  applica- 
ble elsewhere  than  here,  and  fitter  for  other  assemblies  than 
this.  Sir,  the  gentleman  seems  to  forget  where  and  what  we 
are.  This  is  a  senate,  a  senate  of  equals,  of  men  of  individual 
honor  and  personal  character,  and  of  absolute  independence. 
We  know  no  masters,  we  acknowledge  no  dictators.  This  is  a 
hall  for  mutual  consultation  and  discussion  ;  not  an  arena  for 
the  exhibition  of  champions.  I  offer  myself,  sir,  as  a  match  for 
no  man ;  I  throw  the  challenge  of  debate  at  no  man's  feet. 
But  then,  sir,  since  the  honorable  member  has  put  the  question 
in  a  manner  that  calls  for  an  answer,  I  will  give  him  an  answer; 
and  I  tell  him,  that,  holding  myself  to  be  the  humblest  of  the 
members  here,  I  yet  know  nothing  in  the  arm  of  his  friend  from 
Missouri,  either  alone  or  when  aided  by  the  arm  of  his  friend 
from  South  Carolina,  that  need  deter  even  me  from  espousing 
whatever  opinions  I  may  choose  to  espouse,  from  debating 
whenever  I  may  choose  to  debate,  or  from  speaking  whatever  I 
may  see  fit  to  say,  on  the  floor  of  the  senate.  Sir,  when  ut- 
tered as  matter  of  commendation  or  compliment,  I  should  dis- 
sent from  nothing  which  the  honorable  member  might  say  of 
his  friend.  Still  less  do  I  put  forth  any  pretensions  of  my  own. 
But  when  put  to  me  as  a  matter  of  taunt,  I  throw  it  back,  and 
say  to  the  gentleman,  that  he  could  possibly  say  nothing  less 
likely  than  such  a  comparison  to  wound  my  pride  of  personal 
character.  The  anger  of  its  tone  rescued  the  remark  from  in- 
tentional irony,  which  otherwise,  probably,  would  have  been  its 
general  acceptation.  But,  sir,  if  it  be  imagined  that  by  this 
mutual  quotation  and  commendation;  if  it  be  supposed  that,  by 
casting  the  characters  of  the  drama"  assigning  to  each  his  part, 


18  SPEECH   IN   REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

to  one  the  attack,  to  another  the  cry  of  onset ;  or  if  it  be  thought 
that,  by  a  loud  and  empty  vaunt  of  anticipated  victory,  any 
laurels  are  to  be  won  here;  if  it  be  imagined,  especially,  that 
any,  or  all  of  these  things  will  shake  any  purpose  of  mine,  I 
can  tell  the  honorable  member,  once  for  all,  that  he  is  greatly 
mistaken,  and  that  he  is  dealing  with  one  of  whose  temper  and 
character  he  has  yet  much  to  learn.  Sir,  I  shall  not  allow  my- 
self, on  this  occasion,  I  hope  on  no  occasion,  to  be  betrayed  into 
any  loss  of  temper;  but  if  provoked,  as  I  trust  I  never  shall  be, 
into  crimination  and  recrimination,  the  honorable  member  may 
perhaps  find  that,  in  that  contest,  there  will  be  blows  to  take  as 
well  as  blows  to  give;  that  others  can  state  comparisons  as 
significant,  at  least,  as  his  own,  and  that  his  impunity  may  pos- 
sibly demand  of  him  whatever  powers  of  taunt  and  sarcasm  he 
may  possess.  I  commend  him  to  a  prudent  husbandry  of  his 
resources. 

But,  sir,  the  coalition  !  The  coalition  !  Ay,  "the murdered 
coalition !"  The  gentleman  asks,  if  I  were  led  or  frighted  into 
this  debate  by  the  specter  of  the  coalition.  "  Was  it  the 
ghost  of  the  murdered  coalition,"  he  exclaims,  "  which  haunted 
the  member  from  Massachusetts;  and  which,  like  the  ghost  of 
Banquo,  would  never  down?"  "The  murdered  coalition!1' 
Sir,  this  charge  of  a  coalition,  in  reference  to  the  late  adminis- 
tration, is  not  original  with  the  honorable  member.  It  did  not 
spring  up  in  the  senate.  Whether  as  a  fact,  as  an  argument, 
or  as  an  embellishment,  it  is  all  borrowed.  He  adopts  it,  in- 
deed, from  a  very  low  origin,  and  a  still  lower  present  condi- 
tion. It  is  one  of  the  thousand  calumnies  with  which  the  press 
teemed,  during  an  excited  political  canvass.  It  was  a  charge, 
of  which  there 'was  not  only  no  proof  or  probability,  but  which 
was  in  itself  wholly  impossible  to  be  true.  No  man  of  common 
information  ever  believed  a  syllable  of  it.  Yet  it  was  of  that 
class  of  falsehoods,  which,  by  continued  repetition,  through  all 
the  organs  of  detraction  and  abuse,  are  capable  of  misleading 
those  who  are  already  far  misled,  and  of  further  fanning  pas- 
sion already  kindling  into  flame.  Doubtless  it  served  in  its  day, 
and  in  greater  or  less  degree,  the  end  designed  by  it.  Having 
done  that,  it  has  sunk  into  the  general  mass  of  stale  and  loathed 


SPEECH    IN   REPLY   TO   HAYNE.  19 

calumnies.  It  is  the  very  cast-off  slough  of  a  polluted  and 
shameless  press.  Incapable  of  further  mischief,  it  lies  in  the 
sewer,  lifeless  and  despised.  It  is  not  now,  sir,  in  the  power 
of  the  honorable  member  to  give  it  dignity  and  decency,  by  at- 
tempting to  elevate  it,  and  to  introduce  it  into  the  senate.  He 
cannot  change  it  from  what  it  is,  an  object  of  general  disgust 
and  scorn.  On  the  contrary,  the  contact,  if  he  choose  to  touch 
it,  is  more  likely  to  drag  him  down,  down,  to  the  place  where 
it  lies  itself. 

But,  sir,  the  honorable  member  was  not,  for  other  reasons, 
entirely  happy  in  his  allusion  to  the  story  of  Banquo's  murder 
and  Banquo's  ghost.  It  was  not,  I  think,  the  friends,  but  the 
enemies  of  the  murdered  Banquo,  at  whose  bidding  his  spirit 
would  not  down.  The  honorable  gentleman  is  fresh  in  his 
reading  of  the  English  classics,  and  can  put  me  right  if  I  am 
wrong;  but,  according  to  my  poor  recollection,  it  was  at  those 
who  had  begun  with  caresses  and  ended  with  foul  and  treach- 
erous murder  that  the  gory  locks  were  shaken.  The  ghost  of 
Banquo,  like  that  of  Hamlet,  was  an  honest  ghost.  It  disturbed 
no  innocent  man.  It  knew  where  its  appearance  would  strike 
terror,  and  v:ho  would  cry  out,  A  ghost  !  It  made  itself  visible 
in  the  right  quarter,  and  compelled  the  guilty  and  the  con- 
science-smitten, and  none  others,  to  start,  with, 

"Pr'ythee,  see  there  1  behold !— look !  lo! 
If  I  stand  here,  I  saw  him !" 

Their  eyeballs  were  seared  (was  it  not  so,  sir  ?)  who  had  thought 
to  shield  themselves  by  concealing  their  own  hand,  and  laying 
the  imputation  of  the  crime  on  a  low  and  hireling  agency  in 
wickedness;  who  had  vainly  attempted  to  stifle  the  workings 
of  their  own  coward  consciences  by  ejaculating  through  white 
lips  and  chattering  teeth,  "Thou  canst  not  say  I  did  it!"  I 
have  misread  the  great  poet  if  those  who  had  no  way  partaken 
in  the  deed  of  the  death,  either  found  that  they  were,  or  feared 
that  they  should  be,  pushed  from  their  stools  by  the  ghost  of 
the  slain,  or  exclaimed  to  a  specter  created  by  their  own  fears 
and  their  own  remorse,  "  A  vaunt!  and  quit  our  sight!  " 
There  is  another  particular,  sir,  in  which  the  honorable  mem 


20  SPEECH    IN   REPLY    TO    HAYNE. 

ber's  quick  perception  of  resemblances  might,  I  should  think, 
have  seen  something  in  the  story  of  Banquo,  making  it  not  al- 
together a  subject  of  the  most  pleasant  contemplation.  Those 
who  murdered  Banquo,  what  did  they  win  by  it  ?  Substantial 
good  ?  Permanent  power  ?  Or  disappointment,  rather,  and 
sore  mortification  ;  dust  and  ashes,  the  common  fate  of  vault- 
ing ambition  overleaping  itself  ?  Did  not  even-handed  justice 
ere  long  commend  the  poisoned  chalice  to  their  own  lips  ? 
Did  they  not  soon  find  that  for  another  they  had  "  'filed  their 
mind?"  that  their  ambition,  though  apparently  for  the  mo- 
ment successful,  had  but  put  a  barren  scepter  in  their  grasp  ? 
Ay,  sir, 

"  a  barren  scepter  in  their  gripe 
Thence  to  be  wrenched  by  an  unlineal  hand, 
No  son  of  theirs  succeeding." 

Sin,  I  need  pursue  the  allusion  no  farther.  I  leave  the  hon- 
orable gentleman  to  run  it  out  at  his  leisure,  and  to  derive 
from  it  all  the  gratification  it  is  calculated  to  administer.  If 
he  finds  himself  pleased  with  the  associations,  and  prepared  to 
be  quite  satisfied,  though  the  parallel  should  be  entirely  com- 
pleted, I  had  almost  said,  I  am  satisfied  also  ;  but  that  I  shall 
think  of.  Yes,  sir,  I  will  think  of  that. 

I  spoke,  sir,  of  the  ordinance  of  1787,  which  prohibited 
slavery,  in  all  future  times,  northwest  of  the  Ohio,  as  a  meas- 
ure of  great  wisdom  and  foresight,  and  one  which  had  been  at- 
tended with  highly  beneficial  and  permanent  consequences.  I 
supposed  that,  on  this  point,  no  two  gentlemen  in  the  senate 
could  entertain  different  opinions.  But  the  simple  expression 
of  this  sentiment  has  led  the  gentleman,  not  only  into  a  labored 
defense  of  slavery,  in  the  abstract,  and  on  principle,  but  also 
into  a  warm  accusation  against  me,  as  having  attacked  the 
system  of  domestic  slavery  now  existing  in  the  southern  states. 
For  all  this,  there  was  not  the  slightest  foundation,  in  any- 
thing said  or  intimated  by  me.  I  did  not  utter  a  single  word 
which  any  ingenuity  could  torture  into  an  attack  on  the 
slavery  of  the  south.  I  said,  only,  that  it  was  highly  wise  and 
useful,  in  legislating  for  the  northwestern  country  while  it  was 
yet  a  wilderness,  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slaves  ;  and 


SPEECH    IN    REPLY   TO   HAYNE.  21 

added,  that  I  presumed  there  was  in  the  neighboring  state  of 
Kentucky,  no  reflecting  and  intelligent  gentleman  who  would 
doubt  that,  if  the  same  prohibition  had  been  extended,  at  the 
same  early  period,  over  that  commonwealth,  her  strength  and 
population  would,  at  this  day,  have  been  far  greater  than  they 
are.  If  these  opinions  be  thought  doubtful,  they  are  never- 
theless, I  trust,  neither  extraordinary  nor  disrespectful.  They 
attack  nobody  and  menace  nobody.  And  yet,  sir,  the  gentle- 
man's optics  have  discovered,  even  in  the  mere  expression  of 
this  sentiment,  what  he  calls  the  very  spirit  of  the  Missouri 
question.  He  represents  me  as  making  an  onset  on  the  whole 
south,  and  manifesting  a  spirit  which  would  interfere  with, 
and  disturb  their  domestic  condition  ! 

Sir,  this  injustice  no  otherwise  surprises  me,  than  as  it  is  com- 
mitted here,  and  committed  without  the  slightest  pretense  of 
ground  for  it.  I  say  it  only  surprises  me  as  being  done  here  ; 
for  I  know  full  well,  that  it  is,  and  has  been  the  settled  policy 
of  some  persons  in  the  south,  for  years,  to  represent  the  people 
of  the  north  as  disposed  to  interfere  with  them  in  their  own 
exclusive  and  peculiar  concerns.  This  is  a  delicate  and  sensi- 
tive point  in  southern  feeling ;  and  of  late  years  it  has  al- 
ways been  touched,  and  generally  with  effect,  whenever  the  ob- 
ject has  been  to  unite  the  whole  south  against  northern  men  or 
northern  measures.  This  feeling  always  carefully  kept  alive, 
and  maintained  at  too  intense  a  heat  to  admit  discrimination 
or  reflection,  is  a  lever  of  great  power  in  our  political  machine. 
It  moves  vast  bodies,  and  gives  to  them  one  and  the  same  di- 
rection. But  it  is  without  any  adequate  cause,  and  the  suspi- 
cion which  exists  wholly  groundless.  There  is  not  and  never 
has  been,  a  disposition  in  the  north  to  interfere  with  these  in- 
terests of  the  south.  Such  interference  has  never  been  sup- 
posed to  be  within  the  power  of  government  ;  nor  has  it  been 
in  any  way  attempted.  The  slavery  of  the  south  has  always 
been  regarded  as  a  matter  of  domestic  policy,  left  with  the 
states  themselves,  and  with  which  the  federal  government  had 
nothing  to  do.  Certainly,  sir,  I  am,  and  ever  have  been,  of  that 
opinion.  The  gentleman,  indeed,  argues  that  slavery,  in  the 
abstract,  is  no  evil.  Most  assuredly  I  need  not  say  I  dif- 


22  SPEECH    IN   REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

fer  with  him,  altogether  and  most  widely,  on  that  point.  I  re- 
gard domestic  slavery  as  one  of  the  greatest,  of  evils,  both 
moral  and  political.  But  though  it  be  a  malady,  and  whether 
it  be  curable,  and  if  so,  by  what  means  ;  or,  on  the  other  hand, 
whether  it  be  the  vulnus  immedicabile  of  the  social  system,  I 
leave  it  to  those  whose  right  and  duty  it  is  to  inquire  and  to 
decide.  And  this  I  believe,  sir,  is,  and  uniformly  has  been,  the 
sentiment  of  the  north. 

But  as  to  the  Hartford  convention,  sir,  allow  me  to  say, 
that  the  proceedings  of  that  body  seem  now  to  be  less  read  and 
studied  in  New  England  than  farther  south.  They  appear  to 
be  looked  to,  not  in  New  England,  but  elsewhere,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  seeing  how  far  they  may  serve  as  a  precedent.  But 
they  will  not  answer  the  purpose,  they  are  quite  too  tame. 
The  latitude  in  which  they  originated  was  too  cold.  Other 
conventions,  of  more  recent  existence,  have  gone  a  whole  bar's 
length  beyond  it.  The  learned  doctors  of  Colleton  and  Abbe- 
ville have  pushed  their  commentaries  on  the  Hartford  collect 
so  far,  that  the  original  text-writers  are  thrown  entirely  into 
the  shade.  I  have  nothing  to  do,  sir,  with  the  Hartford  con- 
vention. Its  journal,  which  the  gentleman  has  quoted,  I 
never  read.  So  far  as  the  honorable  member  may  discover 
in  its  proceedings  a  spirit  in  any  degree  resembling  that 
which  was  avowed  and  justified  in  those  other  conventions  to 
which  I  have  alluded,  or  so  far  as  those  proceedings  can  be 
shown  to  be  disloyal  to  the  constitution,  or  tending  to  disunion, 
so  far  I  shall  be  as  ready  as  any  one  to  bestow  on  them  repre- 
hension and  censure. 

Having  dwelt  long  on  this  convention,  and  other  occurrences 
of  that  day,  in  the  hope,  probably,  (which  will  not  be  gratified,) 
that  I  should  leave  the  course  of  this  debate  to  follow  him  at 
length  in  those  excursions,  the  honorable  member  returned,  and 
attempted  another  object.  He  referred  to  a  speech  of  mine  in 
the  other  house,  the  same  which  I  had  occasion  to  allude  to 
myself,  the  other  day  ;  and  has  quoted  a  passage  or  two  from  it, 
with  a  bold,  though  uneasy  and  laboring  air  of  confidence,  as 
if  he  had  detected  in  me  an  inconsistency.  Judging  from  the 
gentleman's  manner,  a  stranger  to  the  course  of  the  debate 


SPEECH    IN   REPI/S    TO   HAYNE.  23 

and  to  the  point  in  discussion  would  have  imagined,  from  so 
triumphant  a  tone,  that  the  honorable  member  was  about  to 
overwhelm  me  with  a  manifest  contradiction.  Any  one  who 
heard  him,  and  who  had  not  heard,  what  I  had,  in  fact,  previ- 
ously said,  must  have  thought  me  routed  and  discomfited,  as 
the  gentleman  had  promised.  Sir,  a  breath  blows  all  this 
triumph  away.  There  is  not  the  slightest  difference  in  the 
sentiments  of  my  remarks  on  the  two  occasions.  What  I  said 
here  on  Wednesday  is  in  exact  accordance  with  the  opinion 
expressed  by  me  in  the  other  house  in  1825.  Though  the 
gentleman  had  the  metaphysics  of  Hudibras,  though  he  were 
able 

"to  sever  and  divide 
A  hair  'twixt  north  and  northwest  side,'1 

he  yet  could  not  insert  his  metaphysical  scissors  between  the 
fair  reading  of  my  remarks  in  1825,  and  what  I  said  here  last 
week.  There  is  not  only  no  contradiction,  no  difference,  but, 
in  truth,  too  exact  a  similarity,  both  in  thought  and  language, 
to  be  entirely  in  just  taste.  I  had  myself  quoted  the  same 
speech  ;  had  recurred  to  it,  and  spoke  with  it  open  before  me  ; 
and  much  of  what  I  said  was  little  more  than  a  repetition 
from  it. 

I  need  not  repeat  at  large  the  general  topics  of  the  honora- 
ble gentleman's  speech.  When  he  said  yesterday  that  he  did 
not  attack  the  eastern  states,  he  certainly  must  have  forgot- 
ten, not  only  particular  remarks,  but  the  whole  drift  and  tenor 
of  his  speech ;  unless  he  means  by  not  attacking,  that  he  did 
not  commence  hostilities,  but  that  another  had  preceded  him 
in  the  attack.  He,  in  the  first  place,  disproved  of  the  whole 
course  of  the  government,  for  forty  years,  in  regard  to  its  dis- 
position of  the  public  land;  and  then,  turning  northward  and 
eastward,  and  fancying  he  had  found  a  cause  for  alleged  nar- 
rowness and  niggardliness  in  the  "accursed  policy"  of  the 
tariff,  to  which  he  represented  the  people  of  New  England  as 
wedded,  he  went  on  for  a  full  hour  with  remarks,  the  whole 
scope  of  which  was  to  exhibit  the  results  of  this  policy,  in 
feelings  and  in  measures  unfavorable  to  the  west.  I  thought 


24  SPEECH    IN    REPLY    TO    HAYNE. 

his  opinions  unfounded  and  erroneous,  as  to  the  general 
course  of  the  government,  and  ventured  to  reply  to  then). 

The  gentlemen  had  remarked  on  the  analogy  of  other  crfses, 
and  quoted  the  conduct  of  European  governments  toward 
their  own  subjects  settling  on  this  continent,  as  in  point,  to 
show  that  we  had  been  harsh  and  rigid  in  selling;  when  we 
should  have  given  the  public  lands  to  settlers  without  price. 
I  thought  the  honorable  member  had  suffered  his  judgment  to 
be  betrayed  by  a  false  analogy;  that  he  was  struck  with  an 
appearance  of  resemblance  where  there  was  no  real  similitude. 
I  think  so  still.  The  first  settlers  of  North  America  were  en- 
terprising spirits,  engaged  in  private  adventure,  or  fleeing 
from  tyranny  at  home.  When  arrived  here,  they  were  forgot- 
ten by  the  mother  country,  or  remembered  only  to  be  op- 
pressed. Carried  away  again  by  the  appearance  of  analogy. 
or  struck  with  the  eloquence  of  the  passage,  the  honorable 
member  yesterday  observed,  that  the  conduct  of  government 
toward  the  western  emigrants,  or  my  representation  of  it, 
brought  to  his  mind  a  celebrated  speech  in  the  British  parlia- 
ment. It  was,  sir,  the  speech  of  Colonel  Barre.  On  the 
question  of  the  stamp  act,  or  tea  tax,  I  forget  which,  Colonel 
Barre  had  heard  a  member  on  the  treasury  bench  argue,  that 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  being  British  colonists,  planted 
by  the  maternal  care,  nourished  by  the  indulgence,  and  pro- 
tected by  the  arms  of  England,  would  not  grudge  their  mite 
to  relieve  the  mother  country  from  the  heavy  burden  under 
which  she  groaned.  The  language  of  Colonel  Barre,  in  reply 
to  this,  was  :  "They  planted  by  your  care?  Your  oppression 
planted  them  in  America.  They  fled  from  your  tyranny,  and 
grew  by  your  neglect  of  them.  So  soon  as  you  began  to  care 
for  them,  you  showed  your^care  by  sending  persons  to  spy  out 
their  liberties,  misrepresent  their  character,  prey  upon  them, 
and  eat  out  their  substance." 

And  how  does  the  honorable  gentleman  mean  to  maintain, 
that  language  like  this  is  applicable  to  the  conduct  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  toward  the  western  emigrants, 
or  to  any  representation  given  by  me  of  that  conduct  ?  Were 
the  settlers  in  the  west  driven  thither  by  our  oppression  ? 


SPEECH    IN    REPLY   TO    HAYNE.  25 

Have  they  flourished  only  by  our  neglect  of  them  ?  Has  the 
government  done  dothing  but  to  prey  upon  them,  and  eat  out 
their  substance  ?  Sir,  this  fervid  eloquence  of  the  British 
speaker,  just  when  and  where  it  was  uttered,  and  fit  to  re- 
main an  exercise  for  the  schools,  is  not  a  little  out  of  place, 
when  it  is  brought  thence  to  be  applied  here,  to  the  conduct  of 
our  own  country  toward  her  own  citizens.  From  America  to 
England,  it  may  be  true  ;  from  Americans  to  their  own  govern- 
ment, it  would  be  strange  language.  Let  us  leave  it  to  be  re- 
cited and  declaimed  by  our  boys  against  a  foreign  nation  ;  not 
introduce  it  here,  to  recite  and  declaim  ourselves  against  our 
own. 

We  approach,  at  length,  sir,  to  a  more  important  part  of 
the  honorable  gentleman's  observations.  Since  it  does  not  ac- 
cord with  my  views  of  justice  and  policy  to  give  away  the- 
public  lands  altogether,  as  mere  matter  of  gratuity,  I  am 
asked  by  the  honorable  gentleman  on  what  ground  it  is  that  I 
consent  to  vote  them  away  in  particular  instances.  How,  he 
inquires,  do  I  reconcile  with  these  professed  sentiments,  my 
support  of  measures  appropriating  portions  of  the  lands  to  par- 
ticular roads,  particular  canals,  particular  rivers,  and  particu- 
lar institutions  of  education  in  the  west  ?  This  leads,  sir,  to 
the  real  and  wide  difference  in  political  opinion  between  the 
honorable  gentleman  and  myself.  On  my  part,  I  look  upon 
all  these  objects  as  connected  with  the  common  good,  fairly 
embraced  in  its  object  and  its  terms ;  he,  on  the  contrary, 
deems  them  all,  if  good  at  all,  only  local  good.  This  is  our 
difference.  The  interrogatory  which  he  proceeded  to  put, 
at  once  explains  this  difference.  "  What  interest,"  asks  he, 
"has  South  Carolina  in  a  canal  in  Ohio?1'  Sir,  this  very 
question  is  full  of  significance.  It  develops  the  gentleman's 
whole  political  system  ;  and  its  answer  expounds  mine.  Here 
we  differ.  I  look  upon  a  road  over  the  Alleghanies.  a  canal 
round  the  falls  of  the  Ohio,  or  a  canal  or  railway  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  western  waters,  as  being  an  object  large  and 
extensive  enough  to  be  fairly  said  t<>  be  for  the  common  bene- 
fit. The  gentleman  thinks  otherwise,  and  this  is  the  key  to 
his  construction  of  the  powers  of  the  government.  He  may 


26  SPEECH    IN   KEPLY    TO    HAYNE. 

well  ask  what  interest  has  South  Carolina  in  a  canal  in  Ohio. 
On  his  system,  it  is  true,  she  has  no  interest.  On  that  system, 
Ohio  and  Carolina  are  different  governments,  and  different 
countries;  connected  here,  it  is  true,  by  some  slight  and  ill- 
defined  bond  of  union,  but  in  all  main  respects  separate  and 
diverse.  On  that  system,  Carolina  has  no  more  interest  in  a 
canal  in  Ohio  than  in  Mexico.  The  gentleman,  therefore, 
only  follows  out  his  own  principles;  he  does  no  more  than  ar- 
rive at  the  natural  conclusions  of  his  own  doctrines  ;  he  only 
announces  the  true  results  of  that  creed  which  he  has  adopted 
himself,  and  would  persuade  others  to  adopt,  when  he  thus 
declares  that  South  Carolina  has  no  interest  in  a  public  work 
in  Ohio. 

Sir,  we  narrow-minded  people  of  New  England  do  not  rea- 
son thus.  Our  notion  of  things  is  entirely  different.  We  look 
upon  the  states,  not  as  separated,  but  as  united.  We  love  to 
dwell  on  that  union,  and  on  the  mutual  happiness  which  it 
has  so  much  promoted,  and  the  common  renown  which  it  has 
so  greatly  contributed  to  acquire.  In  our  contemplation,  Car- 
olina and  Ohio  are  parts  of  the  same  country  ;  states,  united 
under  the  same  general  government,  having  interests,  com- 
mon, associated,  intermingled.  In  whatever  is  within  the 
proper  sphere  of  the  constitutional  power  of  this  government, 
we  look  upon  the  states  as  one.  We  do  not  impose  geograph- 
ical limits  to  our  patriotic  feeling  or  regard;  we  do  not  follow 
rivers  and  mountains,  and  lines  of  latitude,  to  find  bounda- 
ries, beyond  which  public  improvements 'do  not  benefit  us. 
We  who  come  here,  as  agents  and  representatives  of  these 
narrow-minded  and  selfish  men  of  New  England,  consider 
ourselves  as  bound  to  regard  with  an  equal  eye  the  good  of 
the  whole,  in  whatever  is  within  our  power  of  legislation. 
Sir,  if  a  railroad  or  canal,  beginning  in  South  Carolina  and 
ending  in  South  Carolina,  appeared  to  me  to  be  of  national 
importance  and  national  magnitude,  believing  as  I  do,  that 
the  power  of  government  extends  to  the  encouragement  of 
works  of  that  description,  if  I  were  to  stand  up  here  and  ask, 
What  interest  has  Massachusetts  in  a  railroad  in  South  Caro- 
lina ?  I  should  not  be  willing  to  face  my  constituents.  These 


SPEECH   IN   REPLY   TO    UAYNE.  27 

same  narrow-minded  men  would  tell  me,  that  they  had  sent 
me  to  act  for  the  whole  country,  and  that  one  who  possessed 
too  little  comprehension,  either  of  intellect  or  feeling,  one 
who  was  not  large  enough  both  in  mind  and  in  heart,  to  em- 
brace the  whole,  was  not  fit  to  be  entrusted  with  the  interest 
of  any  part. 

Sir,  I  do  not  desire  to  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  government 
by  unjustifiable  construction,  nor  to  exercise  any  not  within 
a  fair  interpretation.  But  when  it  is  believed  that  a  power 
does  exist,  then  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  to  be  exercised  for  the 
general  benefit  of  the  whole.  So  far  as  respects  the  exercise 
of  such  a  power,  the  states  are  one.  It  was  the  very  object  of 
the  constitution  to  create  unity  of  interests  to  the  extent  of 
the  powers  of  the  general  government.  In  war  and  peace  we 
are  one  ;  in  commerce,  one  ;  because  the  authority  of  the  gen- 
eral government  reaches  to  war  and  peace,  and  to  the  regula- 
tion of  commerce.  I  have  never  seen  any  more  difficulty  in 
erecting  lighthouses  on  the  lakes,  than  on  the  ocean;  in  im- 
proving the  harbors  of  inland  seas,  than  if  they  were  within 
the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tide ;  or  in  removing  obstructions  in 
thr  vast  streams  of  the  west,  more  than  in  any  work  to  facili- 
tate commerce  on  the  Atlantic  coast.  If  there  be  any  power 
for  one,  there  is  power  also  for  the  other ;  and  they  are  all 
and  equally  for  the  common  good  of  the  country. 

Sir,  to  these  questions  retort  would  be  justified  ;  and  it  is 
both  cogent  and  at  hand.  Nevertheless,  I  will  answer  the 
inquiry,  not  by  retort,  but  by  facts.  I  will  tell  the  gentleman 
irfti-n,  and  J«»c,  and  why  New  England  has  supported  meas- 
ures favorable  to  the  west.  I  have  already  referred  to  the 
early  history  of  the  government,  to  the  first  acquisition  of  the 
lands,  to  the  original  laws  for  disposing  of  them,  and  for  gov- 
erning the  territories  where  they  lie ;  and  have  shown  the 
influence  of  New  England  men  and  New  England  principles 
in  all  these  leading  measures.  I  should  not  be  pardoned  were 
I  to  go  over  that  ground  again.  Coming  to  more  recent  times, 
and  to  measures  of  a  less  general  character,  I  have  endeavored 
to  prove  that  everything  of  this  kind,  designed  for  western 
improvement,  has  depended  on  the  votes  of  New  England  ;  all 


28  SPEECH   IN   REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

this  is  true  beyond  the  power  of  contradiction.  And  now,  sir, 
there  are  two  measures  to  which  I  will  refer,  not  so  ancient 
as  to  belong  to  the  early  history  of  the  public  lands,  and  not 
so  recent  as  to  be  on  this  side  of  the  period  when  the  gentleman 
charitably  imagines  a  new  direction  may  have  been  given  to 
New  England  feeling  and  New  England  votes.  These  meas- 
ures, and  the  New  England  votes  in  support  of  them,  may  be 
taken  as  samples  and  specimens  of  all  the  rest. 

In  1820  (observe,  Mr.  President,  in  1820),  the  people  of  the 
west  besought  congress  for  a  reduction  in  the  price  of  lands. 
In  favor  of  that  reduction,  New  England,  with  a  delegation  of 
forty  members  in  the  other  house,  gave  thirty-three  votes,  and 
one  only  against  it.  The  four  southern  states,  with  over  fifty 
members,  gave  thirty-two  votes  for  it,  and  seven  against  it. 
Again,  in  1821  (observe  again,  sir,  the  time),  the  law  passed 
for  the  relief  of  the  purchasers  of  the  public  lands.  This  was 
a  measure  of  vital  importance  to  the  west,  and  more  especially 
to  the  southwest.  It  authorized  the  relinquishment  of  con- 
tracts for  lands  which  had  been  entered  into  at  high  prices, 
and  a  reduction  in  other  cases  of  not  less  than  thirty-seven  and 
a  half  per  cent,  on  the  purchase-money.  Many  millions  of 
dollars,  six  or  seven,  I  believe,  at  least,  probably  much  more, 
were  relinquished  by  this  law.  On  this  bill,  New  England, 
with  her  forty  members,  gave  more  affirmative  votes  than  the 
four  southern  states,  with  their  fifty-two  or  three  members. 
These  two  are  far  the  most  important  general  measures  re- 
specting the  public  lands  which  have  been  adopted  within  the 
last  twenty  years.  They  took  place  in  1820  and  1821.  That 
is  the  time  when. 

As  to  the  manner  how,  the  gentleman  already  sees  that  it  was 
by  voting  in  solid  column  for  the  required  relief  ;  and,  lastly, 
as  to  the  cause  why,  I  tell  the  gentleman  it  was  because  the 
members  from  New  England  thought  the  measures  just  and 
salutary  ;  because  they  entertained  toward  the  west  neither 
envy,  hatred,  nor  malice  ;  because  they  deemed  it  becoming 
them,  as  just  and  enlightened  men,  to  meet  the  exigency  which 
had  arisen  in  the  west  with  the  appropriate  measure  of  relief ; 
because  they  felt  it  due  to  their  own  characters,  and  the  char- 


SPEECH    IN    REPLY    TO    HAYNE.  29 

acters  of  their  New  England  predecessors  in  this  government, 
to  act  toward  the  new  states  in  the  spirit  of  a  liberal,  patron- 
izing, magnanimous  policy.  So  much,  sir,  for  the  cause  why, 
and  I  hope  that  by  this  time,  sir,  the  honorable  gentleman  is 
satisfied  ;  if  not,  I  do  not  know  when,  or  how,  or  why  he  ever 
will  be. 

This  government,  Mr.  President,  from  its  origin  to  the  peace 
of  1815,  had  been  too  much  engrossed  with  various  other  im- 
portant concerns  to  be  able  to  turn  its  thoughts  inward,  and 
look  to  the  development  of  its  vast  internal  resources.  In  the 
early  part  of  President  Washington's  adminstration,  it  was 
fully  occupied  with  completing  its  own  organization,  providing 
for  the  public  debt,  defending  the  frontiers,  and  maintaining 
domestic  peace.  Before  the  termination  of  that  administration, 
the  fires  of  the  French  revolution  blazed  forth,  as  from  a  new- 
opened  volcano,  and  the  whole  breadth  of  the  ocean  did  not 
secure  us  from  its  effects.  The  smoke  and  the  cinders  reached 
us,  though  not  the  burning  lava.  Difficult  and  agitating  ques- 
tions, embarrassing  to  government  and  dividing  public  opin- 
ion, sprung  out  of  the  new  state  of  our  foreign  relations,  and 
were  succeeded  by  others,  and  yet  again  by  others,  equally 
embarrassing  and  equally  exciting  division  and  discord, 
through  the  long  series  of  twenty  years,  till  they  finally  issued 
in  the  war  with  England.  Down  to  the  close  of  that  war,  no 
distinct,  marked,  and  deliberate  attention  had  been  given,  or 
could  have  been  given,  to  the  internal  condition  of  the  coun- 
try, its  capacities  of  improvement,  or  the  constitutional  power 
of  the  government  in  regard  to  objects  connected  with  such 
.  improvement. 

The  peace,  Mr.  President,  brought  about  an  entirely  new 
and  a  most  interesting  state  of  things  ;  it  opened  to  us  other 
prospects  and  suggested  other  duties.  We  ourselves  were 
changed,  and  the  whole  world  was  changed.  The  pacification 
of  Europe,  after  June,  1815,  assumed  a  firm  and  permanent 
aspect.  The  nations  evidently  manifested  that  they  were  dis- 
posed for  peace.  Some  agitation  of  the  waves  might  be  ex- 
pected, even  after  the  storm  had  subsided,  but  the  tendency 
was,  strongly  and  rapidly,  toward  settled  repose. 


30  SPEECH    IN    REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

It  so  happened,  sir,  that  I  was  at  that  time  a  member  of 
congress,  and,  like  others,  naturally  turned  my  attention  to 
the  contemplation  of  the  newly  altered  condition  of  the  coun- 
try and  of  the  world.  It  appeared  plainly  enough  to  me,  as 
well  as  to  wiser  and  more  experienced  men,  that  the  policy  of 
the  government  would  naturally  take  a  start  in  a  new  direc- 
tion ;  because  new  directions  would  necessarily  be  given  to 
the  pursuits  and  occupations  of  the  people.  We  had  pushed 
our  commerce  far  and  fast,  under  the  advantage  of  a  neutral 
flag.  But  there  were  now  no  longer  flags,  either  neutral  or 
belligerent.  The  harvest  of  neutrality  had  been  great,  but 
we  had  gathered  it  all.  With  the  peace  of  Europe,  it  was 
obvious  there  would  spring  up  in  her  circle  of  nations  a  re- 
vived and  invigorating  spirit  of  trade,  and  a  new  activity  in 
all  the  business  and  objects  of  civilized  life.  Hereafter,  our 
commercial  gains  were  to  be  earned  only  by  success  in  a  close 
and  intense  competition.  Other  nations  would  produce  for 
themselves,  and  carry  for  themselves,  and  manufacture  for 
themselves,  to  the  full  extent  of  their  abilities.  The  crops  of 
our  plains  would  no  longer  sustain  European  armies,  nor  our 
ships  longer  supply  those  whom  war  had  rendered  unable  to 
supply  themselves.  It  was  obvious  that,  under  these  circum- 
stances, the  country  would  begin  to  survey  itself,  and  to  esti- 
mate its  own  capacity  of  improvement. 

And  this  improvement — how  was  it  to  be  accomplished,  and 
who  was  to  accomplish  it  ?  We  were  ten  or  twelve  millions 
of  people,  spread  over  almost  half  a  world.  WTe  were  more 
than  twenty  states,  some  stretching  along  the  same  seaboard, 
some  along  the  same  line  of  inland  frontier,  and  others  on  op- 
posite banks  of  the  same  vast  rivers.  Two  considerations  at 
once  presented  themselves,  in  looking  at  this  state  of  things, 
with  great  force.  One  was,  that  that  great  branch  of  improve- 
ment which  consisted  in  furnishing  new  facilities  of  intercourse 
necessarily  ran  into  different  states  in  every  leading  instance, 
and  would  benefit  the  citizens  of  all  such  states.  No  one  state, 
therefore,  in  such  cases,  would  assume  the  whole  expense,  nor 
was  the  cooperation  of  several  states  to  be  expected.  Take  the 
instance  of  the  Delaware  breakwater.  It  will  cost  several  mill- 


SPEECH    IN    REPLY   TO    HAYNE.  31 

ions  of  money.  Would  Pennsylvania  alone  ever  have  con- 
structed it  ?  Certainly  never,  while  this  Union  lasts,  because 
it  is  not  for  her  sole  benefit.  Would  Pennsylvania,  New  Jer- 
sey, and  Delaware  have  united  to  accomplish  it  at  their  joint 
expense?  Certainly  not.  for  the  same  reason.  It  could  not 
be  done,  therefore,  but  by  the  general  government.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  large  inland  undertakings,  except  that,  in 
them,  government,  instead  of  bearing  the  whole  expense,  coop- 
erates with  others  who  bear  a  part.  The  other  consideration 
is,  that  the  United  States  have  the  means.  They  enjoy  the 
revenues  derived  from  commerce,  and  the  states  have  no  abun- 
dant and  easy  sources  of  public  income.  The  custom-houses 
fill  the  general  treasury,  while  the  states  have  scanty  resources, 
except  by  resort  to  heavy  direct  taxes. 

Under  this  view  of  things,  I  thought  it.  necessary  to  settle,  at 
least  for  myself,  some  definite  notions  with  respect  to  the  pow- 
ers of  the  government  with  regard  to  internal  affairs.  It  may 
not  savor  too  much  of  self-commendation  to  remark,  that,  with 
this  object,  I  considered  the  constitution,  its  judicial  construc- 
tion, its  contemporaneous  exposition,  and  the  whole  history  of 
the  legislation  of  congress  under  it ;  and  I  arrived  at  the 
conclusion,  that  government  had  power  to  accomplish  sundry 
objects  or  aid  in  their  accomplishment,  which  are  now  com- 
monly spoken  of  as  INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS.  That  con- 
clusion, sir,  may  have  been  right,  or  it  may  have  been  wrong. 
I  am  not  about  to  argue  the  grounds  of  it  at  large.  I  say 
only,  that  it  was  adopted  and  acted  on  even  so  early  as  in 
1816.  Yes,  Mr.  President,  I  made  up  my  opinion,  and  deter- 
mined on  my  intended  course  of  political  conduct,  on  these 
subjects,  in  the  fourteenth  congress,  iu  1816.  And  now,  Mr. 
President,  I  have  further  to  say,  that  I  made  up  these  opin- 
ions, and  entered  on  this  course  of  political  conduct,  Teucro 
ditce.*  Yes,  sir,  I  pursued  in  all  this  a  South  Carolina  track 
on  the  doctrines  of  internal  improvement.  South  Carolina, 
as  she  was  then  represented  in  the  other  house,  set  forth  in 
1816  under  a  fresh  and  leading  breeze,  and  I  was  among  the 

*At  the  time  when  this  speech  was  made,  Mr.  Calhoun  was  vice  president, 
and  president  of  the  senate. 


32  SPEECH    IN    REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

followers.  But  if  my  leader  sees  new  lights  and  turns  a  sharp 
corner,  unless  I  see  new  lights  also,  I  keep  straight  on  in  the 
same  path.  I  repeat,  that  leading  gentlemen  from  South 
Carolina  were  first  and  foremost  in  behalf  of  the  doctrines  of 
internal  improvements,  when  those  doctrines  came  first  to  be 
considered  and  acted  upon  in  congress.  The  debate  on  the 
bank  question,  on  the  tariff  of  1816,  and  on  the  direct  tax, 
will  show  who  was  who,  and  what  was  what,  at  that  time. 

The  tariff  of  1816  (one  of  the  plain  cases  of  oppression  and 
usurpation,  from  which,  if  the  government  does  not  recede, 
individual  states  may  justly  secede  from  the  government)  is, 
sir,  in  truth,  a  South  Carolina  tariff,  supported  by  South  Car- 
olina votes.  But  for  those  votes  it  could  not  have  passed  in 
the  form  in  which  it  did  pass;  whereas,  if  it  had  depended  on 
Massachusetts  votes,  it  would  have  been  lost".  Does  not  the 
honorable  gentleman  well  know  all  this  ?  There  are  certainly 
those  who  do,  full  well,  know  it  all.  I  do  not  say  this  to  re- 
proach South  Carolina.  I  only  state  the  fact-,  and  I  think  it 
will  appear  to  be  true,  that  among  the  earliest  and  boldest 
advocates  of  the  tariff,  as  a  measure  of  protection,  and  on  the 
express  ground  of  protect  ion,  were  leading  gentlemen  of  South 
Carolina  in  congress.  I  did  not  then,  and  cannot  now,  under- 
stand their  language  in  any  other  sense.  While  this  tariff  of 
1816  was  under  discussion  in  the  house  of  representatives,  an 
honorable  gentleman  from  Georgia,  now  of  this  house,  (Mr. 
Forsyth),  moved  to  reduce  the  proposed  duty  on  cotton.  He 
failed,  by  four  votes,  South  Carolina  giving  three  votes 
(enough  to  have  turned  the  scale)  against  his  motion.  The 
act,  sir,  then  passed,  and  received  on  its  passage  the  support 
of  a  majority  of  the  representatives  of  South  Carolina  present 
and  voting.  This  act  is  the  first  in  the  order  of  those  now 
denounced  as  plain  usurpations.  We  see  it  daily  in  the  list, 
by  the  side  of  those  of  1824  and  1828,  as  a  case  of  manifest 
oppression,  justifying  disunion.  I  put  it  home  to  the  honor- 
able member  from  South  Carolina,  that  his  own  state  was  not 
only  "  art  and  part"  in  this  measure,  but  the  causa  causdixi. 
Without  her  aid,  this  seminal  principle  of  mischief,  this  root 
of  Upas,  could  not  have  been  planted.  I  have  already  said, 


SPEKCII    IN    REPLY    TO    IIAYNB.  33 

and  it  is  true,  that  this  act  proceeded  on  the  ground  of  pro- 
tection. It  interfered  directly  with  existing  interests  of  great 
value  and  amount.  It  cut  up  the  Calcutta  cotton  trade  by 
the  roots,  but  it  passed,  nevertheless,  and  it  passed  on  the 
principle  of  protecting  manufactures,  on  the  principle  against 
free  trade,  on  the  principle  opposed  to  that  ichich  lets  us 
alone. 

Such,  Mr.  President,  were  the  opinions  of  important  and 
leading  gentlemen  from  South  Carolina,  on  the  subject  of  in- 
ternal improvement,  in  1816.  I  went  out  of  congress  the 
next  year,  and,  returning  again  in  1823,  thought  I  found 
South  Carolina  where  I  had  left  her.  I  really  supposed  that 
all  things  remained  as  they  were,  and  that  the  South  Carolina 
doctrine  of  internal  improvements  would  be  defended  by  the 
same  eloquent  voices,  and  the  same  strong  arms,  as  formerly. 
In  the  lapse  of  these  six  years,  it  is  true,  political  associations 
had  assumed  a  new  aspect  and  new  divisions.  A  party  had 
arisen  in  the  south  hostile  to  the  doctrine  of  internal  improve- 
ments, and  had  vigorously  attacked  that  doctrine.  Anti- 
consolidation  was  the  flag  under  which  this  party  fought  ;  and 
its  supporters  inveighed  against  internal  improvements,  much 
after  the  manner  in  which  the  honorable  gentleman  has  now 
inveighed  against  them,  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  system  of 
consolidation.  Whether  this  party  arose  in  South  Carolina 
herself,  or  in  her  neighborhood,  is  more  than  I  know.  I  think 
the  latter.  However  that  may  have  been,  there  were  those 
found  in  South  Carolina  ready  to  make  war  upon  it,  and  who 
did  make  intrepid  war  upon  it.  Names  being  regarded  as 
things  in  such  controversies,  they  bestowed  on  the  anti-im- 
provement gentlemen  the  appellation  of  radicals.  Yes,  sir, 
the  appellation  of  radicals,  as  a  term  of  distinction  applicable 
and  applied  to  those  who  denied  the  liberal  doctrines  of  inter- 
nal improvement,  originated,  according  to  the  best  of  my  rec- 
ollection, somewhere  between  North  Carolina  and  Georgia. 
Well,  sir,  these  mischievous  radicals  were  to  be  put  down,  and 
the  strong  arm  of  South  Carolina  was  Stretched  out  to  put 
them  down.  About  this  time,  sir,  I  returned  to  congress. 
The  battle  with  the  radicals  had  been  fought,  and  our  South 


34  SPEECH    IN   REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

Carolina  champions  of  the  doctrines  of  internal  improvement 
had  nobly  maintained  their  ground,  and  were  understood  to 
have  achieved  a  victory.  We  looked  upon  them  as  conquer- 
ors. They  had  driven  back  the  enemy  with  discomfiture,  a 
thing,  by  the  way,  sir,  which  is  is  not  always  performed  when 
it  is  promised. 

I  go  to  other  remarks  of  the  honorable  member;  and  I  have 
to  complain  of  an  entire  misapprehension  of  what  I  said  on  the 
subject  of  the  national  debt,  though  I  can  hardly  perceive  how 
any  one  could  misunderstand  me.  What  I  said  was,  not  that  I 
wished  to  put  off  the  payment  of  the  debt,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
that  I  had  always  voted  for  every  measure  for  its  reduction,  as 
uniformly  as  the  gentleman  himself.  He  seems  to  claim  the 
exclusive  merit  of  a  disposition  to  reduce  the  public  charge.  I 
do  not  allow  it  to  him.  As  a  debt,  I  was — I  am  for  paying  it, 
because  it  is  a  charge  on  our  finances,  and  on  the  industry  of  the 
country.  But  I  observed  that  I  thought  I  perceived  a  morbid 
fervor  on  that  subject,  an  excessive  anxiety  to  pay  off  the  debt, 
not  so  much  because  it  is  a  debt  simply,  as  because,  while  it 
lasts,  it  furnishes  one  objection  to  disunion.  It  is  a  tie  of  com- 
mon interest,  wrhile  it  continues.  I  did  not  impute  such  motives 
to  the  honorable  member  himself,  but  that  there  is  such  a  feel- 
ing in  existence  I  have  not  a  particle  of  doubt.  The  most  I  said 
was,  that  if  one  effect  of  the  debt  was  to  strengthen  our  Union, 
that  effect  itself  was  not  regretted  by  me,  however  much  others 
might  regret  it.  The  gentleman  has  not  seen  howr  to  reply  to 
this,  otherwise  than  by  supposing  me  to  have  advanced  the  doc- 
trine that  a  national  debt  is  a  national  blessing.  Others,  I  must 
hope,  will  find  much  less  difficulty  in  understanding  me.  I  dis- 
tinctly and  pointedly  cautioned  the  honorable  member  not  to 
understand  me  as  expressing  an  opinion  favorable  to  the  contin- 
uance of  the  debt.  I  repeated  this  caution,  and  repeated  it  more 
than  once;  but  it  was  thrown  away. 

On  yet  another  point,  I  was  still  more  unaccountably  misun- 
derstood. The  gentleman  had  harangued  against  "  consolida- 
tion." I  told  him,  in" reply,  that  there  was  one  kind  of  consoli- 
dation to  which  I  was  attached,  and  that  was  the  consolidation 
of  our  Union;  that  this  was  precisely  that  consolidation  to 


SPEECH    IN    REPLY   TO    HAYNE.  35 

which  I  feared  others  were  not  attached;  that  such  consoli- 
dation was  the  very  end  of  the  constitution,  the  leading -object, 
as  they  had  informed  us  themselves,  which  its  framers  had  kept 
in  view.  I  turned  to  their  communication,  and  read  their  very 
words,  "the  consolidation  of  the  Union,"  and  expressed  my 
devotion  to  this  sort  of  consolidation.  I  said,  in  terms,  that  I 
wished  not  in  the  slightest  degree  to  augment  the  powers  of 
this  government;  that  my  object  was  to  preserve,  not  to  en- 
large; and  that  by  consolidating  the  Union  I  understood  no 
more  than  the  strengthening  of  the  union,  and  perpetuating  it. 
Having  been  thus  explicit,  having  thus  read  from  the  printed 
book  the  precise  words  which  I  adopted,  as  expressing  my  own 
sentiments,  it  .passes  comprehension  how  any  man  could  under- 
stand me  as  contending  for  an  extension  of  the  powers  of  the 
government,  or  for  consolidation  in  that  odious  sense  in  which 
it  means  an  accumulation,  in  the  federal  government,  of  the 
powers  properly  belonging  to  the  states. 

Professing  to  be  provoked  by  what  he  chose  to  consider  a 
charge  made  by  me  against  South  Carolina,  the  honorable 
.  member,  Mr.  President,  has  taken  up  a  new  ci-usade  against 
New  England.  Leaving  altogether  the  subject  of  the  public 
lands,  in  which  his  success,  perhaps,  had  been  neither  distin- 
guished nor  satisfactory,  and  letting  go,  also,  of  the  topic  of 
the  tariff,  he  sallied  forth  in  a  general  assault  on  the  opinions, 
politics  and  parties  of  New  England,  as  they  have  been  exhib- 
ited in  the  last  thirty  years.  This  is  natural.  The  "  narrow 
policy"  of  the  public  lands  had  proved  a  legal  settlement  in 
South  Carolina,  and  was  not  to  be  removed.  The  "accursed 
policy"  of  the  tariff,  also,  had  established  the  fact  of  its  birth 
and  parentage  in  the  same  state.  No  wonder,  therefore,  the 
gentleman  wished  to  carry  the  war,  as  he  expressed  it,  into 
the  enemy's  country.  Prudently  willing  to  quit  these  sub- 
jects, he  was,  doubtless,  desirous  of  fastening  on  others  that 
which  could  not  be  transferred  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's 
line.  The  politics  of  New  England  became  his  theme;  and  it 
was  in  this  part  of  his  speech,  I  think,  that  he  menaced  me 
with  sore  discomfiture.  Discomfiture  !  Why,  sir,  when  he 
attacks  anything  which  I  maintain,  and  overthrows  it,  when 


36  SPEECH    IN    REPLY    TO    HAYNE. 

he  turns  the  right  or  left  of  any  position  which  I  take  up, 
when  he  drives  me  from  any  ground  I  choose  to  occupy,  he 
may  then  talk  of  discomfiture,  but  not  till  that  distant  day. 
What  has  he  done  ?  Has  he  maintained  his  own  charges  ? 
Has  he  proved  what  he  alleged  ?  Has  he  sustained  himself  in 
his  attack  on  the  government,  and  on  the  history  of  the  north, 
in  the  matter  of  the  public  lands  ?  Has  he  disproved  a  fact, 
refuted  a  proposition,  weakened  an  argument,  maintained  by 
me  ?  Has  he  come  within  beat  of  drum  of  any  position  of 
mine?  O,  no  ;  but  he  has  "carried  the  war  into  the  enemy's 
country  !"  Carried  the  war  into  the  enemy's  country  !  Yes, 
sir,  and  what  sort  of  a  war  has  he  made  of  it  ?  Why,  sir,  he 
has  stretched  a  drag-net  over  the  whole  surface  of  perished 
pamphlets,  indiscreet  sermons,  frothy  paragraphs,  and  fuming 
popular  addresses  ;  over  whatever  the  pulpit  in  its  moments 
of  alarm,  the  press  in  its  heats,  and  parties  in  their  extrava- 
gance, have  severally  thrown  off  in  times  of  general  excite- 
ment and  violence.  He  has  thus  swept  together  a  mass  of 
such  things  as,  but  that  they  are  now  old  and  cold,  the  public 
health  would  have  required  him  rather  to  leave  in  their  state 
of  dispersion.  For  a  good  long  hour  or  two,  we  had  the  un- 
broken pleasure  of  listening  to  the  honorable  member,  while 
he  recited  with  his  usual  grace  and  spirit,  and  with  evident 
high  gusto,  speeches,  pamphlets,  addresses,  and  all  the  et  cet- 
eras  of  the  political  press,  such  as  warm  heads  produce  in 
warm  times;  and  such  as  it  would  be  "discomfiture"  indeed 
for  any  one,  whose  taste  did  not  delight  in  that  sort  of  read- 
ing, to  be  obliged  to  peruse. 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  not — it  will  not,  I  trust,  be  expected 
that  I  should  either  now  or  at  any  time,  separate  this  farrago 
into  parts,  and  answer  and  examine  its  components.  I  shall 
hardly  bestow  upon  it  all  a  general  remark  or  two.  In  the 
run  of  forty  years,  sir,  under  this  constitution,  we  have  exper- 
ienced sundry  successive  violent  party  contests.  Party  arose, 
indeed,  with  the  constitution  itself,  and,  in  some  form  or 
other,  has  attended  it  through  the  greater  part  of  its  history. 
Whether  any  other  constitution  than  the  old  articles  of  con- 
federation was  desirable,  was  itself  a  question  on  which  part- 


SPEECH    IN   REPLY   TO    HAYNE.  37 

ies  formed  ;  if  a  new  constitution  were  framed,  what  powers 
should  be  given  to  it  was  another  question  ;  and  when  it  had 
been  formed,  what  was,  in  fact,  the  just  extent  of  the  powers 
actually  conferred  was  a  third.  Parties,  as  we  know,  existed 
under  the  first  administration,  as  distinctly  marked  as  those 
which  have  manifested  themselves  at  any  subsequent  period. 
The  contest  immediately  preceding  the  political  change  in 
1801,  and  that,  again,  which  existed  at  the  commencement  of 
the  late  war,  are  other  instances  of  party  excitement,  of  some- 
thing more  than  usual  strength  and  intensity.  In  all  these 
conflicts  there  was,  no  doubt,  much  of  violence  on  both  and 
all  sides.  It  would  be  impossible,  if  one  -had  a  fancy  for  such 
employment,  to  adjust  the  relative  quantum  of  violence  be- 
tween these  contending  parties.  There  was  enough  in  each, 
as  must  always  be  expected  in  popular  governments.  With  a 
great  deal  of  proper  and  decorous  discussion,  there  was  min- 
gled a  great  deal,  also,  of  declamation,  virulence,  crimination 
and  abuse.  In  regard  to  any  party,  probably,  at  one  of  the 
leading  epochs  in  the  history  of  parties,  enough  may  be  found 
to  make  out  another  equally  inflamed  exhibition,  as  that  with 
which  the  honorable  member  has  edified  us.  For  myself,  sir, 
I  shall  not  rake  among  the  rubbish  of  bygone  times,  to  see 
what  I  can  find,  or  whether  I  cannot  find  something  by  which 
I  can  fix  a  blot  On  the  escutcheon  of  any  state,  any  paity,  or 
any  part  of  the  country.  General  Washington's  administra- 
tion was  steadily  and  zealously  maintained,  as  we  all  know, 
by  New  England.  It  was  violently  opposed  elsewhere.  We 
know  in  what  quarter  he  had  the  most  earnest,  constant,  and 
persevering  support,  in  all  his  great  and  leading  measures. 
We  know  where  his  private  and  personal  character  was  held 
in  the  highest  degree  of  attachment  and  veneration  ;  and  we 
know,  too,  where  his  measures  were  opposed,  his  services 
slighted,  and  his  character  vilified.  We  know,  or  we  might 
know,  if  we  turned  to  the  journals,  who  expressed  respect, 
gratitude,  and  regret,  when  he  retired  from  the  chief  magis- 
tracy, and  who  refused  to  express  either  respect,  gratitude  or 
regret.  I  shall  not  open  those  journals.  Publications  more 
abusive  or  scurrilous  never  saw  the  light,  than  were  sent  forth 


38  SPEECH    IN   REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

against  Washington,  and  all  his  leading  measures,  from 
presses  south  of  New  England.  But  I  shall  not  look  them  up. 
I  employ  no  scavengers,  no  one  is  in  attendance  on  me,  ten- 
dering such  means  of  retaliation  ;  and  if  there  were,  with  an 
ass's  load  of  them,  with  a  bulk  as  huge  as  that  which  the  gen- 
tleman himself  has  produced,  I  would  not  touch  one  of  them. 
I  see  enough  of  the  violence  of  our  own  times,  to  be  no  way 
anxious  to  rescue  from  forgetfulness  the  extravagances  of 
times  past. 

Besides,  what  is  all  this  to  the  present  purpose?  It  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  public  lands,  in  regard  to  which  the 
attack  was  begun  ;  and  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  those  senti- 
ments and  opinions  which,  I  have  thought,  tend  to  disunion, 
and  all  of  which  the  honorable  member  seems  to  have  adopted 
himself,  and  undertaken  to  defend.  New  England  has,  at 
times — so  argues  the  gentleman— held  opinions  as  dangerous 
as  those  which  he  now  holds.  Suppose  this  were  so  ;  why 
should  he  therefore  abuse  New  England  ?  If  he  finds  himself 
countenanced  by  acts  of  hers,  how  is  it  that,  while  he  relies  on 
these  acts,  he  covers,  or  seeks  to  cover,  their  authors  with  re- 
proach ?  But,  sir,  if  in  the  course  of  forty  years,  there  have 
been  undue  effervescences  of  party  in  New  England,  has  the 
same  thing  happened  nowhere  else  ?  Party  animosity  and 
party  outrage,  not  in  New  England  but  elsewhere,  denounced 
President  Washington,  not  only  as  a  federalist,  but  as  a  tory, 
a  British  agent,  a  man  who  in  his  high  office  sanctioned  cor- 
ruption. But  does  the  honorable  member  suppose,  that  if  I 
had  a  tender  here  who  should  put  such  an  effusion  of  wicked- 
ness and  folly  into  my  hand,  I  would  stand  up  and  read  it 
against  the  south  ?  Parties  ran  into  great  heats  again  in  1799 
and  1800.  What  was  said,  sir,  or  rather  what  was  not  said, 
in  those  years,  against  John  Adams,  one  of  the  signers  of  the 
declaration  of  independence,  and  its  admitted  ablest  defender 
on  the  floor  of  congress  ?  If  the  gentleman  wishes  to  increase 
his  stories  of  party  abuse  and  frothy  violence,  if  he  has  a  de- 
termined proclivity  to  such  pursuits,  there  are  treasures  of 
that  sort  south  of  the  Potomac,  much  to  his  taste,  yet  un- 
touched. I  shall  not  touch  them. 


SPEECH   IN    REPLY    TO    HAYNK.  39 

The  gentleman,  sir,  lias  spoken  at  large  of  former  parties, 
now  no  longer  in  being,  by  their  received  appellations,  and 
has  undertaken  to  instruct  us,  not  only  in  the  knowledge'  of 
their  principles,  but  of  their  respective  pedigrees  also.  He  has 
ascended  to  their  origin,  and  run  out  their  genealogies.  With 
most  exemplary  modesty,  lie  speaks  of  the  party  to  which  he 
professes  to  have  belonged  himself,  as  the  true  Pure,  the  only 
honest,  pati'iotic  party,  derived  by  regular  descent,  from 
father  to  son,  from  the  time  of  the  virtuous  Romans  !  Spread- 
ing before  us  the  family  tree  of  political  parties,  he  takes  es- 
pecial care  to  show  himself  snugly  perched  on  a  popular  bough ! 
He  is  wakeful  to  the  expediency  of  adopting  such  rules  of  de- 
scent as  shall  bring  him  in,  in  exclusion  of  others,  as  an  heir 
to  the  inheritance  of  all  public  virtue  and  all  true  political 
principle.  His  party  and  his  opinions  are  sure  to  be  orthodox; 
heterodoxy  is  confined  to  his  opponents.  He  spoke,  sir,  of  the 
federalists,  and  I  thought  I  saw  some  eyes  begin  to  open  and 
stare  a  little,  when  he  ventured  on  that  ground.  I  expected 
he  would  draw  his  sketches  rather  lightly,  when  he  looked  on 
the  circle  round  him,  and  especially  if  he  should  cast  his 
thoughts  to  the  high  places  out  of  the  senate.  Nevertheless, 
he  went  back  to  Rome,  ad  annum  urbe  condita,  and  found 
the  fathers  of  the  federalists  in  the  primeval  aristocrats  of  that 
renowned  empire.  He  traced  the  flow  of  federal  blood  down 
through  successive  ages  and  centuries,  till  he  brought  it  into 
the  veins  of  the  American  tories,  of  whom,  by  the  way,  there 
were  twenty  in  the  Carolinas  for  one  in  Massachusetts.  From 
the  tories  he  followed  it  to  the  federalists  ;  and,  as  the  federal 
party  was  broken  up,  and  there  was  no  possibility  of  trans- 
mitting it  further  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  he  seems  to 
have  discovered  that  it  has  gone  off  collaterally,  though 
against  all  the  canons  of  descent,  into  the  ultras  of  France, 
and  finally  become  extinguished,  like  exploded  gas,  among  the 
adherents  of  Don  Miguel !  This,  sir,  is  an  abstract  of  the  gen- 
tleman's history  of  federalism.  I  am  not  about  to  controvert 
it.  It  is  not,  at  present,  worth  the  pains  of  refutation  ;  be- 
cause, sir,  if  at  this  day  any  one  feels  the  sin  of  federalism 
lying  heavily  on  his  conscience,  he  can  easily  procure  remis- 


40  SPEECH    IN   KEPLY   TO    HATNE. 

sion.  He  may  even  obtain  an  indulgence,  if  he  be  desirous 
of  repeating  the  same  transgression.  It  is  an  affair  of  no  dif- 
ficulty to  get  into  this  same  right  line  of  patriotic  descent.  A 
man  nowadays  is  at  liberty  to  choose  his  political  parentage. 
He  may  elect  his  own  father.  Federalist,  or  not,  he  may  if  he 
choose,  claim  to  belong  to  the  favored  stock,  and  his  claim  will 
be  allowed.  He  may  carry  back  his  pretensions  just  as  far 
as  the  honorable  gentleman  himself  ;  nay,  he  may  make  himself 
out  the  honorable  gentleman's  cousin,  and  prove,  satisfactorily, 
that  he  is  descended  from  the  same  political  great-grand- 
father. All  this  is  allowable.  We  all  know  a  process,  sir,  by 
which  the  whole  Essex  junto  could,  in  one  hour,  be  all  washed 
white  from  their  ancient  federalism,  aud  come  out,  every  one 
of  them,  an  original  democrat,  dyed  in  the  wool !  Some  of 
them  have  actually  undergone  the  operation,  and  they  say  it 
is  quite  easy.  The  only  inconvenience  it  occasions,  as  they 
tell  us,  is  a  slight  tendency  of  the  blood  to  the  face,  a  soft  suf- 
fusion, which,  however,  is  very  transient,  since  nothing  is  said 
by  those  whom  they  join,  calculated  to  deepen  the  red  on  the 
cheek,  but  a  prudent  silence  observed  in  regard  to  all  the 
past. 

Mr.  President,  in  carrying  his  warfare,  such  as  it  is,  into 
New  England,  the  honorable  gentlemen  all  along  professes  to 
be  acting  on  the  defensive.  He  elects  to  consider  me  as  hav- 
ing assailed  South  Carolina,  and  insists  that  he  comes  forth 
only  as  her  champion,  and  in  her  defense.  Sir,  1  do  not  ad- 
mit that  I  made  any  attack  whatever  on  South  Carolina. 
Nothing  like  it.  The  honorable  member,  in  his  first  speech, 
expressed  opinions,  in  regard  to  revenue  and  some  other  top- 
ics, which  I  heard  both  with  pain  and  with  surprise.  I  told 
the  gentleman  I  was  aware  that  such  sentiments  were  enter- 
tained out  of  the  government,  but  had  not  expected  to  find 
them  advanced  in  it ;  that  I  knew  there  were  persons  in  the 
south  who  speak  of  our  Union  with  indifference  or  doubt, 
taking  pains  to  magnify  its  evils,  and  to  say  nothing  of  its 
benefits  ;  that  the  honorable  member  himself,  I  was  sure, 
could  never  be  one  of  these  ;  and  I  regretted  the  expression  of 
such  opinions  as  he  had  avowed,  because  I  thought  their  ob- 


SPEECH    IN    REPLY    TO    HAYNE.  41 

vious  tendency  was  to  encourage  feelings  of  disrespect  to  the 
Union,  and  to  weaken  its  connection.  This,  sir,  is  the  sum 
and  substance  of  all  I  said  on  the  subject.  And  this  consti- 
tutes the  attack  which  called  on  the  chivalry  of  the  gentle- 
man, in  his  own  opinion,  to  harry  us  with  such  a  foray  among 
the  party  pamphlets  and  party  proceedings  of  Massachusetts  ! 
If  he  means  that  I  spoke  with  dissatisfaction  or  disrespect  of 
the  ebullitions  of  individuals  in  South  Carolina,  it  is  true. 
But  if  he  means  that  I  had  assailed  the  character  of  the  state, 
her  honor,  or  patriotism,  that  I  had  reilected  on  her  history 
or  her  conduct,  he  has  not  the  slightest  ground  for  any  such 
assumption.  I  did  not  even  refer,  I  think,  in  my  observations, 
to  any  collection  of  individuals.  I  said  nothing  of  the  recent 
conventions.  I  spoke  in  the  most  guarded  and  careful  man- 
ner, and  only  expressed  my  regret  for  the  publication  of  opin- 
ions, which  1  presumed  the  honorable  member  disapproved  as 
much  as  myself.  In  this,  it  seems,  I  was  mistaken.  I  do  not 
remember  that  the  gentleman  had  disclaimed  any  sentiment, 
or  any  opinion,  of  a  supposed  anti- union  tendency,  which  on 
all  or  any  of  the  recent  occasions  has  been  expressed.  The 
whole  drift  of  his  speech  has  been  rather  to  prove,  that,  in 
divers  times  and  manners,  sentiments  equally  liable  to  my  ob- 
jection have  been  promulgated  in  New  England. 

Then,  sir,  the  gentleman  has  no  fault  to  find  with  these  re- 
cently promulgated  South  Carolina  opinions.  And  certainly 
he  need  have  none;  for  his  own  sentiments,  as  now  advanced, 
and  advanced  on  reflection,  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  com- 
prehend them,  go  the  full  length  of  all  these  opinions.  I  pro- 
pose, sir,  to  say  something  on  these,  and  to  consider  how  far 
they  are  just  and  constitutional.  Before  doing  that,  however, 
let  me  observe  that  the  eulogium  pronounced  on  the  character 
of  the  state  of  South  Carolina,  by  the  honorable  gentleman,  for 
her  revolutionary  and  other  merits,  meets  my  hearty  concur- 
rence. I  shall  not  acknowledge  that  the  honorable  member 
goes  before  me  in  regard  for  whatever  of  distinguished  talent, 
or  distinguished  character,  South  Carolina  has  produced.  I 
claim  part  of  the  honor,  I  partake  in  the  pride,  of  her  great 
names.  I  claim  them  for  countrymen,  one  and  all,  the  Lau- 


42  SPEECH    IN    REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

rences,  the  Rutledges,  the  Pinckneys,  the  Sumpters,  the  Mari- 
ons, Americans  all,  whose  fame  is  no  more  to  be  hemmed  in 
by  state  lines,  than  their  talents  and  patriotism  were  capable 
of  being  circumscribed  within  the  same  narrow  limits.  In  their 
day  and  generation,  they  served  and  honored  the  country,  and 
the  whole  country;  and  their  renown  is  of  the  treasures  of  the 
whole  country.  Him  whose  honored  name  the  gentleman  him- 
self bears — does  he  esteem  me  less  capable  of  gratitude  for  his 
patriotism,  or  sympathy  for  his  sufferings,  than  if  his  eyes  had 
first  opened  upon  the  light  of  Massachusetts,  instead  of  South 
Carolina  ?  Sir,  does  he  suppose  it  in  his  power  to  exhibit  a 
Carolina  name  so  bright,  as  to  produce  e-nvy  in  my  bosom  ? 
No,  sir,  increased  gratification  and  delight,  rather.  I  thank 
God,  that,  if  I  am  gifted  with  little  of  the  spirit  which  is  able 
to  raise  mortals  to  the  skies,  I  have  yet  none,  as  I  trust,  of  that 
other  spirit,  which  would  drag  angels  down.  When  I  shall  be 
found,  sir,  in  my  place  here  in  the  senate,  or  elsewhere,  to  sneer 
at  public  merit,  because  it  happens  to  spring  up  beyond  the  lit- 
tle limits  of  my  own  state  or  neighborhood;  when  I  refuse,  for 
any  such  cause,  or  for  any  cause,  the  homage  due  to  American 
talent,  to  elevated  patriotism,  to  sincere  devotion  to  liberty  and 
the  country;  or,  if  I  see  an  uncommon  endowment  of  Heaven, 
if  I  see  extraordinary  capacity  and  virtue,  in  any  son  of  the 
south,  and  if,  moved  by  local  prejudice  or  gangrened  by  state 
jealousy,  I  get  up  here  to  abate  the  tithe  of  a  hair  from  his 
just  character  and  just  fame,  may  my  tongue  cleave  to  the 
roof  of  my  month  ! 

Sir,  let  me  recur  to  pleasing  recollections;  let  me  indulge  in 
refreshing  remembrance  of  the  past;  let  me  remind  you  that, 
in  early  times,  no  states  cherished  greater  harmony,  both  of 
principle  and  feeling,  than  Massachusetts  and  South  Carolina. 
AVould  to  God  that  harmony  might  again  return  !  Shoulder 
to  shoulder  they  went  through  the  revolution;  hand  in  hand 
they  stood  round  the  administration  of  Washington,  and  felt 
his  own  great  arm  lean  on  them  for  support.  Unkind  feeling, 
if  it  exists,  alienation,  and  distrust  are  the  growth,  unnatural 
to  such  soils,  of  false  principles  since  sown.  They  are  weeds, 
the  seeds  of  which  that  same  great  arm  never  scattered. 


SPEECH    IN    REPLY    TO    HAYXE.  43 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  enter  on  no  encomium  upon  Massachu- 
setts; she  needs  none.  There  she  is.  Behold  her,  and  judge 
for  yourselves.  There  is  her  history;  the  world  knows  it  by 
heart.  The  past,  at  least,  is  secure.  There  is  Boston,  and 
Concord,  and  Lexington,  and  Bunker  Hill;  and  there  they  will 
remain  forever.  The  bones  of  her  sons,  falling  in  the  great 
struggle  for  independence,  now  lie  mingled  with  the  soil  of 
every  state  from  New  England  to  Georgia;  and  there  they 
will  lie  forever.  And,  sir,  where  American  liberty  raised  its 
first  voice,  and  where  its  youth  was  nurtured  and  sustained, 
there  it  still  lives,  in  the  strength  of  its  manhood  and  full  of 
its  original  spirit.  If  discord  and  disuniqn  shall  wound  it,  if 
party  strife  and  blind  ambition  shall  hawk  at  and  tear  it,  if 
folly  and  madness,  if  uneasiness  under  salutary  and  necessary 
restraint,  shall  succeed  in  separating  it  from  that  Union,  by 
which  alone  its  existence  is  made  sure,  it  will  stand,  in  the 
end,  by  the  side  of  that  cradle  in  which  its  infancy  was  rocked; 
it  will  stretch  forth  its  arm  with  whatever  of  vigor  it  may 
still  retain  over  the  friends  who  gather  round  it;  and  it  will 
fall  at  last,  if  fall  it  must,  amidst  the  proudest  monuments  of 
its  own  glory,  and  on  the  very  spot  of  its  origin. 

There  yet  remains  to  be  performed,  Mr.  President,  by  far 
the  most  grave  and  important  duty,  which  I  feel  to  be  de- 
volved on  me  by  this  occasion.  It  is  to  state,  and  to  defend, 
what  I  conceive  to  be  the  true  principles  of  the  constitution 
under  which  we  are  here  assembled.  I  might  well  have  de- 
sired that  so  weighty  a  task  should  have  fallen  into  other  arid 
abler  hands.  I  could  have  wished  that  it  should  have  been 
executed  by  those  whose  character  and  experience  give  weight 
and  influence  to  their  opinions,  such  as  cannot  possibly  be- 
long to  mine.  But,  sir,  I  have  met  the  occasion,  not  sought 
it;  and  I  shall  proceed  to  state  my  own  sentiments,  without 
challenging  for  them  any  particular  regard,  with  studied 
plainness,  and  as  much  precision  as  possible. 

I  understand  the  honorable  gentleman  from  South  Caro- 
lina to  maintain,  that  it  is  a  right  of  the  state  legislatures  to 
interfere,  whenever,  in  their  judgment,  this  government  tran- 
scends its  constitutional  limits,  and  to  arrest  the  operation  of 
its  laws. 


44  SPEEC1I    IN    REPLY    TO    HAYNE. 

I  understand  him- to  maintain  this  right,  as  a  right  existing 
under  the  constitution,  not  as  a  right  to  overthrow  it  on  the 
ground  of  extreme  necessity,  such  as  would  justify  violent 
revolution. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  an  authority,  on  the  part  of 
the  states,  thus  to  interfere,  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  the 
exercise  of  power  by  the  general  government,  of  checking  it, 
and  of  compelling  it  to  conform  to  their  opinion  of  the  extent 
of  its  powers. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain,  that  the  ultimate  power  of 
judging  of  the  constitutional  extent  of  its  own  authority  is  not 
lodged  exclusively  in  the  general  government,  or  any  branch 
of  it;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  states  may  lawfully  de- 
cide for  themselves,  and  each  state  for  itself,  whether,  in  a 
given  case,  the  act  of  the  general  government  transcends  its 
power. 

I  understand  him  to  insist,  that,  if  the  exigency  of  the  case, 
in  the  opinion  of  any  state  government,  require  it,  such  state- 
government  may,  by  its  own  sovereign  authority,  annul  an  act 
of  the  general  government  which  it  deems  plainly  and  palpa- 
bly unconstitutional. 

This  is  the  sum  of  what  I  understand  from  him  to  be  the 
South  Carolina  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine  which  he  maintains. 
I  propose  to  consider  it,  and  co'mpare  it  with  the  constitution. 
Allow  me  to  say,  as  a  preliminary  remark,  that  I  call  this  the 
South  Carolina  doctrine  only  because  the  gentleman  himself  has 
so  denominated  it.  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  say  that  South 
Carolina,  as  a  state,  has  ever  advanced  these  sentiments.  I 
hope  she  has  not,  and  never  may.  That  a  great  majority  of 
her  people  are  opposed  to  the  tariff  laws,  is  doubtless  true. 
That  a  majority,  somewhat  less  than  that  just  mentioned,  con- 
scientiously believe  these  laws  unconstitutional,  may  probably 
also  be  true.  But  that  any  majority  holds  to  the  right  of  di- 
rect state  interference  at  state  discretion,  the  right  of  nullify- 
ing acts  of  congress  by  acts  of  state  legislation,  is  more  than 
I  know,  and  what  I  shall  be  slow  to  believe. 

That  there  are  individuals  besides  the  honorable  gentleman 
who  do  maintain  these  opinions,  is  quite  certain.  I  recollect 


SPEECH    IN   REPLY   TO    HAYNE.  45 

the  recent  expression  of  a  sentiment,  which  circumstances  at- 
tending its  utterance  and  publication  justify  us  in  supposing 
was  not  unpremeditated:  "The  sovereignty  of  the  state- 
never  to  be  controlled,  construed,  or  decided  on,  but  by  her 
own  feelings  of  honorable  justice." 

The  inherent  right  in  the  people  to  reform  their  government 
I  do  not  deny  ;  and  they  have  another  right,  and  that  is,  to 
resist  unconstitutional  laws,  without  overturning  the  govern- 
ment. It  is  no  doctrine  of  mine  that  unconstitutional  laws 
bind  the  people.  The  great  question  is,  Whose  prerogative  is 
it  to  decide  on  the  constitutionality  or  unconstitutionally  of 
the  laws  ?  On  that,  the  main  debate  hinges. 

This  leads  us  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  this  government 
and  the  source  of  its  power.  Whose  agent  is  it  ?  Is  it  the 
creature  of  the  state  legislatures,  or  the  creature  of  the  peo- 
ple ?  If  the  government  of  the  United  States  be  the  agent  of 
the  state  governments,  then  they  may  control  it,  provided 
they  can  agree  in  the  manner  of  controlling  it ;  if  it  be  the 
agent  of  the  people,  then  the  people  alone  can  control  it,  re- 
strain it,  modify,  or  reform  it.  It  is  observable  enough,  that 
the  doctrine  for  which  the  honorable  gentleman  contends  leads 
him  to  the  necessity  of  maintaining,  not  only  that  this  general 
government  is  the  creature  of  the  states,  but  that  it  is  the 
creature  of  each  of  the  states  severally,  so  that  each  may  as- 
sert the  power  for  itself  of  determining  whether  it  acts  within 
the  limits  of  its  authority.  It  is  the  servant  of  four-and- 
t  went y  masters,  of  different  wills  and  different  purposes,  and 
yet  bound  to  obey  all.  This  absurdity  (for  it  seems  no  less) 
arises  from  a  misconception  as  to  the  origin  of  this  government 
and  its  true  character.  It  is,  sir,  the  people's  constitution, 
the  people's  government,  made  for  the  people,  made  by  the 
people,  and  answerable  to  the  people.  The  people  of  the 
United  States  have  declared  that  this  constitution  shall  be  the 
supreme  law.  We  must  either  admit  the  proposition,  or  dis- 
pute the  authority.  The  states  are,  unquestionably,  sovereign, 
so  far  as  their  sovereignty  is  not  affected  by  this  supreme  law. 
But  the  state  legislatures,  as  political  bodies,  however  sover- 
eign, are  yet  not  sovereign  over  the  people.  So  far  as  the 


46  SPEECH    IN   REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

people  have  given  power  to  the  general  government,  so  far 
the  grant  is  unquestionably  good,  and  the  government  holds 
of  the  people,  and  not  of  the  state  governments.  We  are  all 
agents  of  the  same  supreme  power,  the  people.  The  general 
government  and  the  state  governments  derive  their  authority 
from  the  same  source.  Neither  can,  in  relation  to  the  other, 
be  called  primary,  though  one  is  definite  and  restricted,  and 
the  other  general  and  residuary.  The  national  government 
possesses  those  powers  which  it  can  be  shown  the  people  have 
conferred  on  it,  and  no  more.  All  the  rest  belongs  to  the 
state  governments,  or  to  the  people  themselves.  So  far  as  the 
people  have  restrained  state  sovereignty,  by  the  expression  of 
their  will,  in  the  constitution  of  the  Uuited  States,  so  far,  it 
must  be  admitted,  state  sovereignty  is  effectually  controlled. 
I  do  not  contend  that  it  is,  or  ought  to  be,  controlled  farther. 
The  sentiment  to  which  I  have  referred  propounds  that  state 
sovereignty  is  only  to  be  controlled  by  its  own  "feeling  of 
justice;"  that  is  to  say,  it  is  not  to  be  controlled  at  all,  for 
one  who  is  to  follow  his  own  feelings,  is  under  no  legal  con- 
trol. Now,  however  men  may  think  this  ought  to  be,  the  fact 
is,  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  have  chosen  to  impose 
control  on  state  sovereignties.  There  are  those,  doubtless, 
who  wish  they  had  been  left  without  restraint ;  but  the  con- 
stitution has  ordered  the  matter  differently.  To  make  war, 
for  instance,  is  an  exercise  of  sovereignty  ;  but  the  constitu- 
tion declares  that  no  state  shall  make  war.  To  coin  money  is 
another  exercise  of  sovereign  power;  but  no  state  is  at  liberty 
to  coin  money.  Again,  the  constitution  says  that  no  sovereign 
state  shall  be  so  sovereign  as  to  make  a  treaty.  These  prohi- 
bitions it  must  be  confessed,  are  a  control  on  the  state  sover- 
eignty of  South  Carolina,  as  well  as  of  the  other  states,  which 
does  not  arise  "  from  her  own  feelings  of  honorable  justice." 
Such  an  opinion,  therefore,  is  in  defiance  of  the  plainest  pro- 
visions of  the  constitution. 

Resolutions,  sir,  have  been  recently  passed  by  the  legislature 
of  South  Carolina.  I  need  not  refer  to  them  ;  they  go  no  far- 
ther than  the  honorable  gentleman  himself  has  gone,  and  I 
hope  not  so  far.  I  content  myself,  therefore,  with  debating 
the  matter  with  him. 


SPEECH   IN   EEPLY   TO    HAYNE.  47 

And  now,  sir,  what  I  have  first  to  say  on  this  subject  is, 
that  at  no  time,  and  under  no  circumstances,  has  New  Eng- 
land, or  any  state  in  New  England,  or  any  respectable  body 
of  persons  in  New  England,  or  any  public  man  of  standing  in 
New  England,  put  forth  such  a  doctrine  as  this  Carolina  doc- 
trine. 

The  gentleman  has  found  no  case,  he  can  find  none,  to  sup- 
port his  own  opinions  by  New  England  authority.  New  Eng- 
land has  studied  the  constitution  in  other  schools,  and  under 
other  teachers.  She  looks  upon  it  with  other  regards,  and 
deems  more  highly  and  reverently  both  of  its  just  authority 
and  its  utility  and  excellence.  The  history  of  her  legislative 
proceedings  may  be  traced.  The  ephemeral  effusions  of  tem- 
porary bodies,  called  together  by  the  excitement  of  the  occa- 
sion, may  be  hunted  up;  they  have  been  hunted  up.  The 
opinions  and  votes  of  her  public  men,  in  and  out  of  congress, 
may  be  explored.  It  will  all  be  in  vain.  The  Carolina  doc- 
trine can  derive  from  her  neither  countenance  nor  support. 
She  rejects  it  now  ;  she  always  did  reject  it;  and  till  she  loses 
her  senses,  she  always  will  reject  it.  The  honorable  member 
has  referred  to  expressions  on  the  subject  of  the  embargo  law, 
made  in  this  place,  by  an  honorable  and  venerable  gentleman, 
(Mr.  Hillhouse,)  now  favoring  us  with  his  presence.  He  quotes 
that  distinguished  senator  as  saying,  that,  in  his  judgment, 
the  embargo  law  was  unconstitutional,  and  that,  therefore,  in 
his  opinion,  the  people  were  not  bound  to  obey  it.  That,  sir, 
is  perfectly  constitutional  language.  An  unconstitutional  law 
is  not  binding;  but  then  it  does  not  rest  with  a  resolution  or  a 
law  of  a  state  legislature  to  decide  whether  an  act  of  congress 
be  or  be  not  constitutional.  An  unconstitutional  act  of  con- 
gress would  not  bind  the  people  of  this  district,  although  they 
have  no  legislature  to  interfere  in  their  behalf;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  constitutional  law  of  congress  does  bind  the 
citizens  of  every  state,  although  all  their  legislatures  should 
undertake  to  annul  it  by  act  or  resolution.  The  venerable 
Connecticut  senator  is  a  constitutional  lawyer,  of  sound  prin- 
ciples and  enlarged  knowledge:  a  statesman  practised  and 
experienced,  bred  in  the  company  of  Washington,  and  holding 


48  SPEECH   IN    REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

just  views  upon  the  nature  of  our  governments.  He  believed 
the  embargo  unconstitutional,  and  so  did  others;  but  what 
then  ?  Who  did  he  suppose  was  to  decide  that  question  ?  The 
state  legislatures  ?  Certainly  not.  No  such  sentiment  ever 
escaped  his  lips. 

Let  us  follow  up,  sir,  this  New  England  opposition  to  the 
embargo  laws;  let  us  trace  it,  till  we  discern  the  principle 
which  controlled  and  governed  New  England  throughout  the 
whole  course  of  that  opposition.  We  shall  then  see  what  sim- 
ilarity there  is  between  the  New  England  school  of  constitu- 
tional opinions,  and  this  modern  Carolina  school.  The  gen- 
tleman, I  think,  read  a  petition  from  some  single  individual 
addressed  to  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts,  asserting  the 
Carolina  doctrine;  that  is,  the  right  of  state  interference  to 
arrest  the  laws  of  the  Union.  The  fate  of  that  petition  shows 
the  sentiment  of  the  legislature.  It  met  no  favor.  The  opin- 
ions of  Massachusetts  were  otherwise.  They  had  been  ex- 
pressed in  1798,  in  answer  to  the  resolutions  of  Virginia,  and 
she  did  not  depart  from  them,  nor  bend  them  to  the  times. 
Misgoverned,  wronged,  oppressed,  as  she  felt  herself  to  be, 
she  still  held  fast  her  integrity  to  the  Union.  The  gentleman 
may  find  in  her  proceedings  much  evidence  of  dissatisfaction 
with  the  measures  of  government,  and  great  and  deep  dislike 
to  the  embargo;  all  this  makes  the  case  so  much  the  stronger 
for  her;  for,  notwithstanding  all  this  dissatisfaction  and  dis- 
like, she  claimed  no  right,  still,  to  sever  asunder  the  bonds 
of  the  Union.  There  was  heat,  and  there  was  anger  in  her 
political  feeling.  Be  it  so;  her  heat  or  her  anger  did  not, 
nevertheless,  betray  her  into  infidelity  to  the  government. 
The  gentleman  labors  to  prove  that  she  disliked  the  embargo 
as  much  as  South  Carolina  dislikes  the  tariff,  and  expressed 
her  dislike  as  strongly.  Be  it  so;  but  did  she  propose  the 
Carolina  remedy  ?  did  she  threaten  to  interfere,  by  state 
authority,  to  annul  the  laws  of  the  Union?  That  is  the  ques- 
tion for  the  gentleman's  consideration. 

No  doubt,  sir,  a  great  majority  of  the  people  of  New  Eng- 
land conscientiously  believed  the  embargo  law  of  1807  uncon- 
stitutional; as  conscientiously,  certainly,  as  the  people  of  Soufh 


SPEECH    IN   REPLY   TO    HAYNE.  49 

Carolina  hold  that  opinion  of  the  tariff.  They  reasoned  thus: 
Congress  has  power  to  regulate  commerce;  but  here  is  a  law 
they  said,  stopping  all  commerce  and  stopping  it  indefinitely. 
The  law  is  perpetual ;  that  is,  it  is  not  limited  in  point  of  time, 
and  must  of  course  continue  until  it  shall  be  repealed  by  some 
other  law.  It  is  as  perpetual,  therefore,  as  the  law  against 
treason  or  murder.  Now  is  this  regulating  commerce,  or  de- 
stroying it  ?  Is  it  guiding,  controlling,  giving  the  rule  to 
commerce,  as  a  subsisting  thing,  or  is  it  putting  an  end  to  it 
altogether  ?  Nothing  is  more  certain,  than  that  a  majority  in 
New  England  deemed  this  law  a  violation  of  the  constitution. 
The  very  case  required  by  the  gentleman  to  justify  state  inter- 
ference had  then  arisen.  Massachusetts  believed  this  law  to 
be  "  a  deliberate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise  of  a  power 
not  granted  by  the  constitution."  Deliberate  as  it  was,  for  it 
was  long  continued;  palpable  she  thought  it,  as  no  words  in 
the  constitution  gave  the  power,  and  only  a  construction,  in 
her  opinion  most  violent,  raised  it;  dangerous  it  was,  since  it 
threatened  utter  ruin  to  her  most  important  interests.  Here, 
then,  was  a  Carolina  case.  How  did  Massachusetts  deal  with 
it?  It  was,  as  she  thought,  a  plain,  manifest,  palpable  viola- 
tion of  the  constitution,  and  it  brought  ruin  to  her  doors. 
Thousands  of  families,  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  individ- 
uals, were  beggared  by  it.  While  she  saw  and  felt  all  this, 
she  saw  and  felt  also,  that,  as  a  measure  of  national  policy,  it 
was  perfectly  futile;  that  the  country  was  noway  benefited  by 
that  which  caused  so  much  individual  distress;  that  it  was  ef- 
ficient only  for  the  production  of  evil,  and  all  that  evil  in- 
flicted on  ourselves.  In  such  a  case,  under  such  circum- 
stances, how  did  Massachusetts  demean  herself  ?  Sir,  she  re- 
monstrated, she  memorialized,  she  addressed  herself  to  the 
general  government,  not  exactly  "  with  the  concentrated 
energy  of  passion,"  but  with  her  own  strong  sense,  and  the 
energy  of  sober  conviction.  But  she  did  not  interpose  the  arm 
of  her  own  power  to  arrest  the  law,  and  break  the  embargo. 
Far  from  it.  Her  principles  bound  her  to  two  things;  and 
she  followed  her  principles,  lead  where  they  might.  First,  to 
submit  to  every  constitutional  law  of  congress,  and  secondly, 


50  SPEECH    IN    REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

if  the  constitutional  validity  of  the  law  be  doubted,  to  refer 
that  question  to  the  decision  of  the  proper  tribunals.  The 
first  principle  is  vain  and  ineffectual  without  the  second.  A 
majority  of  us  in  New  England  believed  the  embargo  law  un- 
constitutional ;  but  the  great  question  was,  and  always  will  be 
in  such  cases,  Who  is  to  decide  this  ?  Who  is  to  judge  be- 
tween the  people  and  the  government  ?  And,  sir,  it  is  quite 
plain,  that  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  confers  on  the 
government  itself,  to  be  exercised  by  its  appropriate  depart- 
ment, and  under  its  own  responsibility  to  the  people,  this 
power  of  deciding  ultimately  and  conclusively  upon  the  just 
extent  of  its  own  authority.  If  this  had  not  been  done,  we 
should  not  have  advanced  a  single  step  beyond  the  old  con- 
federation. 

Being  fully  of  opinion  that  the  embargo  law  was  unconstitu- 
tional, the  people  of  New  England  were  yet  equally  clear  in 
the  opinion — it  was  a  matter  they  did  not  doubt  upon— that 
the  question,  after  all,  must  be  decided  by  the  judicial  tribu- 
nals of  the  United  States.  Before  these  tribunals,  therefore, 
they  brought  the  question.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  law, 
they  had  given  bonds  to  millions  in  amount,  and  which  were 
alleged  to  be  forfeited.  They  suffered  the  bonds  to  be  sued, 
and  thus  raised  the  question.  In  the  old-fashioned  way  of 
settling  disputes,  they  went  to  law.  The  case  came  to  hear- 
ing, and  solemn  argument;  and  he  who  espoused  their  cause, 
and  stood  up  for  them  against  the  validity  of  the  embargo 
act,  was  none  other  than  that  great  man,  of  whom  the  gentle- 
man has  made  honorable  mention,  Samuel  Dexter.  He  was 
then,  sir,  in  the  fullness  of  his  knowledge,  and  the  maturity 
of  his  strength.  He  had  retired  from  long  and  distinguished 
public  service  here,  to  the  renewed  pursuit  of  professional 
duties,  carrying  with  him  all  that  enlargement  and  expansion, 
all  the  new  strength  and  force,  which  an  acquaintance  with 
the  more  general  subjects  discussed  in  the  national  councils  is 
capable  of  adding  to  professional  attainment,  in  a  mind  of  true 
greatness  and  comprehension.  He  was  a  lawyer,  and  he  was 
also  a  statesman.  He  had  studied  the  constitution,  when  he 
filled  public  station,  that  he  might  defend  it.  He  had  exam- 


SPEECH    IN    KEPLY   TO    HAYNE.  51 

ined  the  principles  that  might  maintain  them.  More  than  all 
men,  or  at  least  as  much  as  any  man,  he  was  attached  to  the 
general  government  and  to  the  union  of  the  states.  His  feel- 
ings and  opinions  all  ran  in  that  direction.  A  question  of 
constitutional  law,  too,  was,  of  all  subjects,  that  one  which 
was  best  suited  to  his  talents  and  learning.  Aloof  from  tech- 
nicality, and  unfettered  by  artificial  rule,  such  a  question  gave 
opportunity  for  that  deep  and  clear  analysis,  that  mighty 
grasp  of  principle,  which  so  much  distinguished  his  higher 
efforts.  His  very  statement  was  argument;  his  inference 
seemed  demonstration.  The  earnestness  of  his  own  conviction 
wrought  conviction  in  others.  One 'was  convinced,  and  be- 
lieved, and  assented,  because  it  was  gratifying,  delightful,  to 
think,  and  feel,  and  believe,  in  unison  with  an  intellect  of  such 
evident  superiority. 

Mr.  Dexter,  sir,  such  as  I  have  described  him,  argued  the 
New  England  cause.  He  put  into  his  effort  his  whole  heart, 
as  well  as  all  the  powers  of  his  understanding ;  for  he  had 
avowed,  in  the  most  public  manner,  his  entire  concurrence 
with  his  neighbors  on  the  point  in  dispute.  He  argued  the 
cause  ;  it  was  lost,  and  New  England  submitted.  The  estab- 
lished tribunals  pronounced  the  law  constitutional,  and  New 
England  acquiesced.  Now,  sir,  is  not  this  the  exact  opposite 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  ?  Ac- 
cording to  him,  instead  of  referring  to  the  judicial  tribunals, 
we  should  have  broken  up  the  embargo  by  laws  of  our  own  ; 
we  should  have  repealed  it,  quoad  New  England  ;  for  we  had 
a  strong,  palpable,  and  oppressive  case.  Sir,  we  believed  the 
embargo  unconstitutional ;  but  still  that  was  matter  of  opinion, 
and  who  was  to  decide  it  ?  We  thought  it  a  clear  case  ;  but, 
nevertheless,  we  did  not  take  the  law  into  our  own  hands,  be- 
cause we  did  not  wish  to  bring  about  a  revolution,  nor  to 
break  up  the  Union  ;  for  I  maintain,  that  between  submission 
to  the  decision  of  the  constituted  tribunals,  and  revolution,  or 
disunion,  there  is  no  middle  ground ;  there  is  no  ambiguous 
condition,  half  allegiance  and  half  rebellion.  And,  sir,  how 
futile,  how  very  futile  it  is,  to  admit  the  right  of  state  inter- 
ference, and  then  attempt  to  save  it  from  the  character  of  un- 


52  SPEECH    IN   KEPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

lawful  resistance,  by  adding  terms  of  qualification  to  the 
causes  and  occasions,  leaving  all  these  qualifications,  like  the 
case  itself,  in  the  discretion  of  the  state  governments.  It 
must  be  a  clear  case,  it  is  said,  a  deliberate  case,  a  palpable 
case,  a  dangerous  case.  But  then  the  state  is  still  left  at  lib- 
erty to  decide  for  herself  what  is  clear,  what  is  deliberate,  what 
is  palpable,  what  is  dangerous.  Do  adjectives  and  epithets 
avail  anything  ?  Sir,  the  human  mind  is  so  constituted,  that 
the  merits  of  both  sides  of  a  controversy  appear  very  clear, 
and  very  palpable,  to  those  who  respectively  espouse  them  ; 
and  both  sides  usually  grow  clearer  as  the  controversy  ad- 
vances. South  Carolina  sees  unconstitutionally  in  the  tariff ; 
she  sees  oppression  there,  also,  and  she  sees  danger.  Pennsyl- 
vania, with  a  vision  not  less  sharp,  looks  at  the  same  tariff, 
and  sees  no  such  thing  in  it ;  she  sees  it  all  constitutional,  all 
useful,  all  safe.  The  faith  of  South  Carolina  is  strengthened  by 
opposition,  and  she  now  not  only  sees,  but  resolves,  that  the 
tariff  is  palpably  unconstitutional,  oppressive,  and  dangerous  ; 
but  Pennsylvania  not  to  be  behind  her  neighbors,  and  equally 
willing  to  strengthen  her  own  faith  by  a  confident  asseveration, 
resolves,  also,  and  gives  to  every  warm  affirmative  of  South 
Carolina,  a  plain,  downright,  Pennsylvania  negative.  South 
Carolina  to  show  the  strength  and  unity  of  her  opinion, 
brings  her  assembly  to  a  unanimity,  within  seven  voices ; 
Pennsylvania,  not  to  be  outdone  in  this  respect  any  more  than 
in  others,  reduces  her  dissentient  fraction  to  a  single  vote. 
Now,  sir,  again,  I  ask  the  gentleman,  What  is  to  be  done? 
Are  these  states  both  right  ?  Is  he  bound  to  consider  them 
both  right  ?  If  not,  which  is  in  the  wrong  ?  or  rather,  which 
has  the  best  right  to  decide  ?  And  if  he,  and  if  I,  are  not  to 
know  what  the  constitution  means,  and  what  it  is,  till  these 
two  state  legislatures,  and  the  twenty-two  others,  shall  agree 
in  its  construction,  what  have  we  sworn  to,  when  we  have 
sworn  to  maintain  it !  I  was  forcibly  struck,  sir,  with  one  re- 
flection, as  the  gentleman  went  on  in  his  speech.  He  quoted 
Mr.  Madison's  resolutions,  to  prove  that  a  state  may  interfere, 
in  a  case  of  deliberate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise  of  a 
power  not  granted.  The  honorable  member  supposes  the 


SPEECH    IN    REPLY   TO    HAYNE.  53 

tariff  law  to  be  such  an  exercise  of  power  ;  and  that  conse- 
quently a  case  has  arisen  in  which  the  state  may,  if  it  see  fit, 
interfere  by  its  own  law.  Now  it  so  happens,  nevertheless, 
that  Mr.  Madison  deems  this  same  tariff  law  quite  constitu- 
tional. Instead  of  a  clear  and  palpable  violation,  it  is,  in  his 
judgment,  no  violation  at  all.  So  that,  while  they  use  his 
authority  for  a  hypothetical  case,  they  reject  it  in  the  very 
case  before  them.  All  this,  sir,  shows  the  inherent  futility,  I 
had  almost  said  a  stronger  word,  of  conceding  this  power  of 
interference  to  the  states,  and  then  attempting  to  secure  it 
from  abuse  by  imposing  qualifications  of  which  the  states 
themselves  are  to  judge.  One  of  two  things  is  true  ;  either 
the  laws  of  the  Union  are  beyond  the  discretion  and  beyond 
the  control  of  the  states  ;  or  else  we  have  no  constitution  of 
general  government,  and  are  thrust  back  again  to  the  days  of 
the  confederacy. 

Let  me  here  say,  sir,  that  if  the  gentleman's  doctrine 
had  been  received  and  acted  upon  in  New  England,  in  the 
times  of  the  embargo  and  non-intercourse,  we  should  probably 
not  now  have  been  here.  The  government  would  very  likely 
have  gone^to  pieces,  and  crumbled  into  dust.  No  stronger  case 
can  ever  arise  than  existed  under  those  laws  ;  no  states  can 
ever  entertain  a  clearer  conviction  than  the  New  England 
states  then  entertained  ;  and  if  they  had  been  under  the 
influence  of  that  heresy  of  opinion,  as  I  must  call  it,  which 
the  honorable  member  espouses,  this  Union  would,  in  all 
probability,  have  been  scattered  to  the  four  winds.  I  ask  the 
gentleman,  therefore,  to  apply  his  principles  to  that  case ; 
I  ask  him  to  come  forth  and  declare,  whether,  in  his  opinion, 
the  New  England  states  would  have  been  justified  in  interfer- 
ing to  break  up  the  embargo  system  under  the  conscientious 
opinions  which  they  held  upon  it  ?  Had  they  a  right  to  annul 
that  law  ?  Does  he  admit  or  deny  ?  If  what  is  thought  palpa- 
bly unconstitutional  in  South  Carolina  justifies  that  state  in 
arresting  the  progress  of  the  law,  tell  me  whether  that  which 
was  thought  palpably  unconstitutional  also  in  Massachusetts 
would  have  justified  her  in  doing  the  same  thing.  Sir,  I  deny 
the  whole  doctrine.  It  has  not  a  foot  of  ground  in  the  consti- 


54  SPEECH   IN   REPLY  TO    HAYNE. 

tution  to  stand  on.  No  public  man  of  reputation  ever  ad- 
vanced it  in  Massachusetts  in  the  warmest  times,  or  could 
maintain  himself  upon  it  there  at  any  time. 

I  must  now  beg  to  ask,  sir,  Whence  is  this  supposed  right  of 
the  states  derived  ?  Where  do  they  find  the  power  to  inter- 
fere with  the  laws  of  the  Union  ?  Sir,  the  opinion  which  the 
honorable  gentleman  maintains  is  a  notion  founded  in  a  total 
misapprehension,  in  my  judgment,  of  the  origin  of  this  govern- 
ment, and  of  the  foundation  on  which  it  stands.  I  hold  it  to  be 
a  popular  government,  erected  by  the  people;  those  who  ad- 
minister it,  responsible  to  the  people  ;  and  itself  capable  of  be- 
ing amended  and  modified,  just  as  the  people  may  choose  it 
should  be.  It  is  as  popular,  just  as  truly- emanating  from  the 
people,  as  the  state  governments.  It  is  created  for  one  pur- 
pose; the  state  governments  for  another.  It  has  its  own  pow- 
ers ;  they  have  theirs.  There  is  no  more  authority  with  them 
to  arrest  the  operation  of  a  law  of  congress,  than  with  congress 
to  arrest  the  operation  of  their  laws.  We  are  here  to  admin- 
ister a  constitution  emanating  immediately  from  the  people,  and 
trusted  by  them  to  our  administration.  It  is  not  the  creature 
of  the  state  governments.  It  is  of  no  moment  to  the  argument, 
that  certain  acts  of  the  state  legislatures  are  necessary  to  fill  our 
seats  in  this  body.  .That  is  not  one  of  their  original  state  pow- 
ers, a  part  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  state.  It  is  a  duty  which 
the  people,  by  the  constitution  itself,  have  imposed  on  the  state 
legislatures;  and  which  they  might  have  left  to  be  performed 
elsewhere,  if  they  had  seen  fit.  So  they  have  left  the  choice  of 
president  with  electors;  but  all  this  does  not  affect  the  propo- 
sition that  this  whole  government,  president,  senate,  and  house 
of  representatives,  is  a  popular  government.  It  leaves  it  still 
all  its  popular  character.  The  governor  of  the  state  (in  some 
of  the  states)  is  chosen,  not  directly  by  the  people,  but  by  those 
who  are  chosen  by  the  people,  for  the  purpose  of  performing, 
among  other  duties,  that  of  electing  a  governor.  Is  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  state,  on  that  account,  not  a  popular  govern- 
ment? This  government,  sir,  is  the  independent  offspring 
of  the  popular  will.  It  is  not  the  creature  of  state  legislatures; 
nay,  more,  if  the  whole  truth  must  be  told,  the  people  brought 


SPEEC11    IN    REPLY   TO    HAYNE.  55 

it  into  existence,  established  it,  and  have  hitherto  supported  it, 
for  the  very  purpose,  amongst  others,  of  imposing  certain  sal- 
utary restraints  on  state  sovereignties.  The  states  cannot  now 
make  war;  they  cannot  contract  alliances;  they  cannot  make, 
each  for  itself,  separate  regulations  of  commerce  ;  they  cannot 
lay  imposts;  they  cannot  coin  money.  If  this  constitution, 
sir,  be  the  creature  of  state  legislatures,  it  must  be  admitted 
that  it  has  obtained  a  strange  control  over  the  volition  of  its 
creators. 

The  people,  then,  sir,  erected  this  government.  They  gave 
it  a  constitution,  and  in  that  constitution  they  have  enumerated 
the  powers  which  they  bestow  on  it.  They  have  made  it  a 
limited  government.  They  have  defined  its  authority.  They 
have  restrained  it  to  the  exercise  of  such  powers  as  are  granted; 
and  all  others,  they  declare,  are  reserved  to  the  states  or  the 
people.  But,  sir,  they  have  not  stopped  here.  If  they  had, 
they  would  have  accomplished  but  half  their  work.  No  defi- 
nition can  be  so  clear,  as  to  avoid  possibility  of  doubt;  no 
limitation  so  precise,  as  to  exclude  all  uncertainty.  Who,  then, 
shall  construe  this  grant  of  the  people  ?  Who  shall  interpret 
their  will,  where  it  may  be  supposed  they  have  left  it  doubtful  ? 
With  whom  do  they  repose  this  ultimate  right  of  deciding  on 
the  powers  of  the  government  ?  Sir,  they  have  settled  all  this 
in  the  fullest  manner.  They  have  left  it  with  the  government 
itself,  in  its  appropriate  branches.  Sir,  the  very  chief  end,  the 
main  design,  for  which  the  whole  constitution  was  framed  and 
adopted,  was  to  establish  a  government  that  should  not  be 
obliged  to  act  through  state  agency,  or  depend  on  state  opinion 
and  state  discretion.  The  people  had  had  quite  enough  of  that 
kind  of  government  under  the  confederacy.  Under  that  sys- 
tem, the  legal  action,  the  application  of  law  to  individuals,  be- 
longed exclusively  to  the  states.  Congress  could  only  recom- 
mend; their  acts  were  not  of  binding  force,  till  the  states  had 
adopted  and  sanctioned  them.  Are  we  in  that  condition  still  ? 
Are  we  yet  at  the  mercy  of  state  discretion  and  state  construc- 
tion ?  Sir,  if  we  are,  then  vain  will  be  our  attempt  to  maintain 
the  constitution  under  which  we  sit. 

But,  sir,  the  people  have  wisely  provided,  in  the  constitution 


56  SPEECH   IN  REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

itself,  a  proper,  suitable  mode  and  tribunal  for  settling  questions 
of  constitutional  law.  There  are  in  the  constitution  grants  of 
powers  to  congress,  and  restrictions  on  those  powers.  There 
are,  also,  prohibitions  on  the  states.  Some  authority  must, 
therefore,  necessarily  exist,  having  the  ultimate  jurisdiction  to 
fix  and  ascertain  the  interpretation  of  these  grants,  restrictions, 
and  prohibitions.  The  constitution  has  itself  pointed  out,  or- 
dained, and  established  that  authority.  How  has  it  accom- 
plished this  great  and  essential  end  ?  By  declaring,  sir,  that 
"  the  constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  made  in 
pursuance  thereof,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  any- 
thing in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  state  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding. '' 

This,  sir,  was  the  first  great  step.  By  this  the  supremacy 
of  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States  is  declared. 
The  people  so  will  it.  No  state  law  is  to  be  valid  which  comes 
in  conflict  with  the  constitution,  or  any  law  of  the  United 
States  passed  in  pursuance  of  it.  But  who  shall  decide  this 
question  of  interference  ?  To  whom  lies  the  last  appeal  ?  This, 
sir,  the  constitution  itself  decides  also,  by  declaring  "  that  the 
judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  arising  under  the  con- 
stitution and  laws  of  the  United  States."  These  two  provis- 
ions, sir,  cover  the  whole  ground.  They  are,  in  truth,  the  key- 
stone of  the  arch !  With  these  it  is  a  government;  without 
them  it  is  a  confederacy.  In  pursuance  of  these  clear  and  ex- 
press provisions,  congress  established,  at  its  very  first  session, 
in  the  judicial  act,  a  mode  for  carrying  them  into  full  effect, 
and  for  bringing  all  questions  of  constitutional  power  to  the 
final  decision  of  the  supreme  court.  It  then,  sir,  became  a 
government.  It  then  had  the  means  of  self-protection  ;  and 
but  for  this,  it  would,  in  all  probability,  have  been  now  among 
the  things  which  are  past.  Having  constituted  the  government, 
and  declared  its  powers,  the  people  have  further  said,  that,  since 
somebody  must  decide  on  the  extent  of  these  powers,  the.  gov- 
ernment shall  itself  decide;  subject,  always,  like  other  popular 
governments,  to  its  responsibility  to  the  people.  And  now,  sir, 
I  repeat,  how  is  it  that  a  state  legislature  acquires  any  power  to 
interfere  ?  Who,  or  what,  gives  them  the  right  to  say  to  the 


SPEECH   IN   REPLY   TO    HAYNB.  57 

people,  "  We,  who  are  your  agents  and  servants,  for  one  pur- 
pose, will  undertake  to  decide,  that  your  other  agents  and  ser- 
vants, appointed  by  you  for  another  purpose,  have  transcended 
the  authority  you  gave  them  !"  The  reply  would  be,  I  think, 
not  impertinent, —  "  Who  made  you  a  judge  over  another's  ser- 
vants? To  their  own  masters  they  stand  or  fall." 

Sir,  I  deny  this  power  of  state  legislatures  altogether.  It 
cannot  stand  the  test  of  examination.  Gentlemen  may  say, 
that,  in  an  extreme  case,  a  state  government  might  protect 
the  people  from  intolerable  oppression.  Sir,  in  such  a  case,  the 
people  might  protect  themselves,  without  the  aid  of  the  state 
governments.  Such  a  case  warrants  revolution.  It  must  make, 
when  it  comes,  a  law  for  itself.  A  nullifying  act  as  a  state 
legislature  cannot  alter  the  case,  nor  make  resistance  any  more 
lawful.  In  maintaining  these  sentiments,  sir,  I  am  but  assert- 
ing the  rights  of  the  people.  I  state  what  they  have  declared, 
and  insist  on  their  right  to  declare  it.  They  have  chosen  to 
repose  this  power  in  the  general  government,  and  I  think  it 
my  duty  to  support  it,  like  other  constitutional  powers. 

For  myself,  sir,  I  do  not  admit  the  jurisdiction  of  South  Car- 
olina, or  any  other  state,  to  prescribe  my  constitutional  duty, 
or  to  settle,  between  me  and  the  people,  the  validity  of  laws  of 
congress,  for  which  I  have  voted.  I  decline  her  umpirage.  I 
have  not  sworn  to  support  the  constitution  according  to  her  con- 
struction of  its  clauses.  I  have  not  stipulated  by  my  oath  of 
office  or  otherwise,  to  come  under  any  responsibility,  except 
to  the  people,  and  those  whom  they  have  appointed  to  pass 
upon  the  question,  whether  laws,  supported  by  my  votes,  con- 
form to  the  constitution  of  the  country.  And,  sir,  if  we  look 
to  the  general  nature  of  the  case,  could  anything  have  been  more 
preposterous,  than  to  make  a  government  for  the  whole  Union, 
and  yet  leave  its  powers  subject,  not  to  one  interpretation,  but 
to  thirteen  or  twenty-four  interpretations  !  Instead  of  one  tri- 
bunal, established  by  all,  responsible  to  all,  with  power  to  de- 
cide for  all,  shall  constitutional  questions  be  left  to  four-and- 
twenty  popular  bodies,  each  at  liberty  to  decide  for  itself,  and 
none  bound  to  respect  the  decisions  of  others;  and  each  at  lib- 
erty, too,  to  give  a  new  construction  on  every  new  election  of 


58  SPEECH   IN    REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

its  own  members  ?  Would  anything,  with  such  a  principle  in 
it,  rather  with  such  a  destitution  of  all  principle,  be  fit  to  be 
called  a  government  ?  No,  sir.  It  should  not  be  denominated 
a  constitution.  It  should  be  called,  rather,  a  collection  of  top- 
ics for  everlasting  controversy;  heads  of  debate  for  a  disputa- 
tious people.  It  would  not  be  a  government.  It  would  not 
be  adequate  to  any  practical  good,  or  fit  for  any  country  to  live 
under. 

To  avoid  all  possibility  of  being  misunderstood,  allow  me  to 
repeat  again,  in  the  fullest  manner,  that  I  claim  no  powers 
for  the  government  by  forced  or  unfair  construction.  I  admit 
that  it  is  a  government  of  strictly  limited  powers  ;  of  enumer- 
ated, specified,  and  particularized  powers ;  and  that  whatsoever 
is  not  granted,  is  withheld.  But  notwithstanding  all  this,  and 
however  the  grant  of  powers  may  be  expressed,  its  limit 
and  extent  may  yet,  in  some  cases,  admit  of  doubt ;  and 
the  general  government  would  be  good  for  nothing,  it  would 
be  incapable  of  long  existing,  if  some  mode  had  not  been  pro- 
vided in  which  those  doubts,  as  they  should  arise,  might 
be  peaceably,  but  authoritatively  solved. 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  let  me  run  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman's doctrine  a  little  into  its  practical  application.  Let  us 
look  at  his  probable  modus  operandi.  If  a  thing  can  be  done, 
an  ingenious  man  can  tell  how  it  is  to  be  done.  Now  I 
wish  to  be  informed  hoiv  this  state  interference  is  to  be  put  in 
practice,  without  violence,  bloodshed,  and  rebellion.  We  will 
take  the  existing  case  of  the  tariff  law.  South  Carolina  is  said 
to  have  made  up  her  opinion  upon  it.  If  we  do  not  repeal  it, 
(as  we  probably  shall  not,)  she  will  then  apply  to  the  case  the 
remedy  of  her  doctrine.  She  will,  we  must  suppose,  pass 
a  law  of  her  legislature,  declaring  the  several  acts  of  congress, 
usually  called  the  tariff  laws,  null  and  void,  so  far  as  they  re- 
spect South  Carolina,  or  the  citizens  thereof.  So  far,  all  is  a 
paper  transaction,  and  easy  enough.  But  the  collector  at 
Charleston  is  collecting  the  duties  imposed  by  these  tariff  laws. 
He,  therefore,  must  be  stopped.  The  collector  will  seize 
the  goods  if  the  tariff  duties  are  not  paid.  The  state  authori- 
ties will  undertake  their  rescue ;  the  marshal,  with  his  posse, 


SPEECH    IN   REPLY    TO    HAYNE.  59 

will  come  to  the  collector's  aid,  and  here  the  contest  begins. 
The  militia  of  the  state  will  be  called  out  to  sustain  the  nulli- 
fying act.  They  will  march,  sir,  under  a  very  gallant  leader  ; 
for  I  believe  the  honorable  member  himself  commands  the 
militia  of  that  part  of  the  state.  He  will  raise  the  NULLIFYING 
ACT  on  his  standard,  and  spread  it  out  as  his  banner !  It  will 
have  a  preamble,  bearing,  that  the  tariff  laws  are  palpable, 
deliberate,  and  dangerous  violations  of  the  constitution  !  He 
will  proceed,  with  his  banner  flying,  to  the  custom-house  in 
Charleston, 

"  All  the  while, 
Sonorous  metal  blowing  martial  sounds." 

Arrived  at  the  custom-house,  he  will  tell  the  collector  that  he 
must  collect  no  more  duties  under  any  of  the  tariff  laws. 
This  he  will  be  somewhat  puzzled  to  say,  by  the  way,  with  a 
grave  countenance,  considering  what  hand  South  Carolina 
herself  had  in  that  of  1816.  But,  sir,  the  collector  would  not, 
probably,  desist  at  his  bidding.  He  would  show  him  the  law 
of  congress,  the  treasury  instruction,  and  his  own  oath  of 
office.  He  would  say,  he  should  perform  his  duty,  come  what 
might. 

Here  would  come  a  pause  ;  for  they  say  that  a  certain  still- 
ness precedes  the  tempest.  The  trumpeter  would  hold  his 
breath  awhile,  and  before  all  this  military  array  should  fall  on 
the  custom-house,  collector,  clerks,  and  all,  it  is  very  probable 
some  of  those  composing  it  would  request  of  their  gallant 
commander-in-chief  to  be  informed  a  little  upon  the  point  of 
law;  for  they  have,  doubtless,  a  just  respect  for  his  opinions 
as  a  lawyer,  as  well  as  for  his  bravery  as  a  soldier.  They 
know  he  has  read  Blackstone  and  the  constitution,  as  well  as 
Turenne  and  Vauban.  They  would  ask  him,  therefore,  some- 
thing concerning  their  rights  in  this  matter.  They  would 
inquire,  whether  it  was  not  somewhat  dangerous  to  resist  a 
law  of  the  United  States.  What  would  be  the  nature  of  their 
offence,  they  would  wish  to  learn,  if  they,  by  military  force 
and  array,  resisted  the  execution  in  Carolina  of  a  law  of  the 
United  States,  and  it  should  turn  out,  after  all,  that  the  law 
was  constitutional !  He  would  answer,  of  course,  treason. 


60  SPEECH   IN   EEPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

No  lawyer  could  give  any  other  answer.  John  Fries,  he 
would  tell  them,  had  learned  that,  some  years  ago.  How, 
then,  they  would  ask,  do  you  propose  to  defend  us  ?  We  are 
not  afraid  of  bullets,  but  treason  has  a  way  of  taking  people 
off  that  we  do  not  much  relish.  How  do  you  propose  to 
defend  us?  "Look  at  my  floating  banner,"  he  would  reply  ; 
"see  there  the  nullifying  law!"  Is  it  your  opinion,  gallant 
commander,  they  would  then  say,  that,  if  we  should  be 
indicted  for  treason,  that  same  floating  banner  of  yours  would 
make  a  good  plea  in  bar?  "South  Carolina  is  a  sovereign 
state,"  he  would  reply.  That  is  true  ;  but  would  the  judge 
admit  our  plea  !  "These  tariff  laws,"  he  would  repeat  "are 
unconstitutional,  palpably,  deliberately,  dangerously."  That 
may  all  be  so  ;  but  if  the  tribunal  should  not  happen  to  be  of 
that  opinion,  shall  we  swing  for  it  ?  We  are  ready  to  die  for 
our  country,  but  it  is  rather  an  awkward  business,  this  dying 
without  touching  the  ground  !  After  all,  that  is  a  sort  of  hemp 
tax  worse  than  any  part  of  the  tariff. 

Mr.  President,  the  honorable  gentleman  would  be  in  a 
dilemma,  like  that  of  another  great  general.  He  would  have 
a  knot*  before  him  which  he  could  not  untie.  He  must  cut  it 
with  his  sword.  He  must  say  to  his  followers,  "Defend  your- 
selves with  your  bayonets  ;"  and  this  is  war — civil  war. 

Direct  collision,  therefore,  between  force  and  force,  is  the 
unavoidable  result  of  that  remedy  for  the  revision  of  unconsti- 
tutional laws  which  the  gentleman  contends  for.  It  must 
happen  in  the  very  first  case  to  which  it  is  applied.  Is  not 
this  the  plain  result  ?  To  resist  by  force  the  execution  of  a 
law,  generally,  is  treason.  Can  the  courts  of  the  United 
States  take  notice  of  the  indulgence  of  a  state  to  commit 
treason?  The  common  saying  that  a  state  cannot  commit 
treason  herself,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  Can  she  authorize 


*  A  knot— the  Gordian  knot.  Gordins,  a  Phrygian  peasant,  was  chosen 
king  by  the  Phrygians.  He  consecrated  his  wagon  to  Jupiter,  and  so  skill- 
fully tied  the  yoke  to  the  pole  that  the  ends  of  the  cord  could  not  be  seen. 
It  was  current  rumor  that  whoever  untied  the  knot  should  be  King  of  Asia, 
and  when  Alexander  the  Great  was  shown  it,  he  cut  it  with  his  sword,  say- 
ing, "  It  is  thus  we  loose  our  knots." 


SPEECH   IN   REPLY   TO   HAYNE.  61 

others  to  do  it  ?  If  John  Fries  had  produced  an  act  of  Penn- 
sylvania, annulling  the  law  of  congress,  would  it  have  helped 
his  case?  Talk  about  it  as  we  will,  these  docti'ines  go  the 
length  of  revolution.  They  are  incompatible  with  any  peacea- 
ble administration  of  the  government.  They  lead  directly  to 
disunion  and  civil  commotion  ;  and  therefore  it  is,  that  at 
their  commencement,  when  they  are  first  found  to  be  main- 
tained by  respectable  men,  and  in  a  tangible  form,  I  enter  my 
public  protest  against  them  all. 

The  honorable  gentleman  argues,  that  if  this  government 
be  the  sole  judge  of  the  extent  of  its  own  powers,  whether  that 
right  of  judging  be  in  congress  or  the  supreme  court,  it  equally 
subverts  state  sovereignty.  This  the  gentleman  sees,  or  thinks 
he  sees,  although  he  cannot  perceive  how  the  right  of  judging, 
in  this  matter,  if  left  to  the  exercise  of  state  legislatures,  has 
any  tendency  to  subvert  the  government  of  the  Union.  The 
gentleman's  opinion  may  be,  that  the  right  ought  not  to  have 
been  lodged  with  the  general  government ;  he  may  like  better 
such  a  constitution  as  we  should  have  under  the  right  of  state 
interference  ;  but  I  ask  him  to  meet  me  on  the  plain  matter  of 
fact.  I  ask  him  to  meet  me  on  the  constitution  itself.  I  ask 
him  if  the  power  is  not  found  there,  clearly  and  visibly  found 
there  ? 

But,  sir,  what  is  this  danger,  and  what  are  the  grounds  of 
it  ?  Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States  is  not  unalterable.  It  is  to  continue  in  its  present  form 
no  longer  than  the  people  who  established  it  shall  choose  to 
continue  it.  If  they  shall  become  convinced  that  they  have 
made  an  injudicious  or  inexpedient  partition  and  distribution 
of  power  between  the  state  governments  and  the  general  gov- 
ernment, they  can  alter  that  distribution  at  will. 

If  anything  be  found  in  the  national  constitution,  either  by 
original  provision  or  subsequent  interpretation,  which  ought 
not  to  be  in  it,  the  people  know  how  to  get  rid  of  it.  If  any 
construction  be  established  unacceptable  to  them,  so  as  to  be- 
come practically  a  part  of  the  constitution,  they  will  amend 
it,  at  their  own  sovereign  pleasure.  But  while  the  people 
choose  to  maintain  it  as  it  is,  while  they  are  satisfied  with  it, 


62  SPEECH   IN   REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

and  refuse  to  change  it,  who  has  given,  or  who  can  give,  to 
the  state  legislatures  a  right  to  alter  it,  either  by  interference, 
construction,  or  otherwise  ?  Gentlemen  do  not  seem  to  recol- 
lect that  the  people  have  any  power  to  do  anything  for  them- 
selves. They  imagine  there  is  no  safety  for  them,  any  longer 
than  they  are  under  the  close  guardianship  of  the  state  legis- 
latures. Sir,  the  people  have  not  trusted  their  safety,  in  re- 
gard to  the  general  constitution,  to  these  hands.  They  have 
required  other  security,  and  taken  other  bonds.  They  have 
chosen  to  trust  themselves,  first,  to  the  plain  words  of  the  in- 
strument, and  to  such  construction  as  the  government  itself, 
in  doubtful  cases,  should  put  on  its  own  powers,  and  under 
their  oaths  of  office,  and  subject  to  their  responsibility  to 
them;  just  as  the  people  of  a  state  trust  their  own  state  gov- 
ernment with  a  similar  power.  Secondly,  they  have  reposed 
their  trust  in  the  efficacy  of  frequent  elections,  and  in  their 
own  power  to  remove  their  own  servants  and  agents  whenever 
they  see  cause.  Thirdly,  they  have  reposed  trust  in  the  ju- 
dicial power,  which,  in  order  that  it  might  be  trustworthy, 
they  have  made  as  respectable,  as  disinterested,  and  as  inde- 
pendent as  was  practicable.  Fourthly,  they  have  seen  fit  to 
rely,  in  case  of  necessity,  or  high  expediency,  on  their  known 
and  admitted  power  to  alter  or  amend  the  constitution,  peace- 
ably and  quietly,  whenever  experience  shall  point  out  defects 
or  imperfections.  And,  finally,  the  people  of  the  United 
States  have  at  no  time,  in  no  way,  directly  or  indirectly,  au- 
thorized any  state  legislature  to  construe  or  interpret  their 
high  instrument  of  government;  much  less,  to  interfere,  by 
their  own  power,  to  arrest  its  course  and  operation. 

If,  sir,  the  people  in  these  respects  had  done  otherwise  than 
they  have  done,  their  constitution  could  neither  have  been 
preserved,  nor  would  it  have  been  worth  preserving.  And  if 
its  plain  provisions  shall  now  be  disregarded,  and  these  new 
doctrines  interpolated  in  it,  it  will  become  as  feeble  and  help- 
less a  being  as  its  enemies,  whether  early  or  more  recent, 
could  possibly  desire.  It  will  exist  in  every  state,  but  as  a 
poor  dependent  on  state  permission.  It  must  borrow  leave  to 
be  ;  and  will  be,  no  longer  than  state  pleasure,  or  state  discre- 


SPEECH   IN   EEPLY   TO    HAYNE.  63 

tion,  sees  fit  to  grant  the  indulgence,  and  prolong  its  poor  ex- 
istence. 

But,  sir,  although  there  are  fears,  there  are  hopes  also. 
The  people  have  preserved  this,  their  own  chosen  constitution, 
for  forty  years,  and  have  seen  their  happiness,  prosperity,  and 
renown  grow  with  its  growth,  and  strengthen  with  its  strength. 
They  are  now,  generally,  strongly  attached  to  it.  Overthrown 
by  direct  assault,  it  cannot  be  ;  evaded,  undermined,  NULLIFIED, 
it  will  not  be,  if  we,  and  those  who  shall  succeed  us  here,  as 
agents  and  representatives  of  the  people,  shall  conscientiously 
and  vigilantly  discharge  the  two  great  branches  of  our  public 
trust,  faithfully  to  preserve,  and  wisely  to  administer  it. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  thus  stated  the  reasons  of  my  dissent 
to  the  doctrines  which  have  been  advanced  and  maintained. 
I  am  conscious  of  having  detained  you  and  the  senate  much 
too  long.  I  was  drawn  into  the  debate  with  no  previous  de- 
liberation, such  as  is  suited  to  the  discussion  of  so  grave  and 
important  a  subject.  But  it  is  a  subject  of  which  my  heart  is 
full,  and  I  have  not  been  willing  to  suppress  the  utterance  of 
its  spontaneous  sentiments.  I  cannot,  even  now,  persuade 
myself  to  relinquish  it,  without  expressing  once  more  my  deep 
conviction,  that,  since  it  respects  nothing  less  than  the  union 
of  the  states,  it  is  of  most  vital  and  essential  importance  to 
the  public  happiness.  I  profess,  sir,  in  my  career  hitherto,  to 
have  kept  steadily  in  view  the  prosperity  and  honor  of  the 
whole  country,  and  the  preservation  of  our  federal  Union.  It 
is  to  that  Union  we  owe  our  safety  at  home,  and  our  consider- 
ation and  dignity  abroad.  It  is  to  that  Union  that  we  are 
chiefly  indebted  for  whatever  makes  us  most  proud  of  our 
country.  That  Union  we  reached  only  by  the  discipline  of 
our  virtues  in  the  severe  school  of  adversity.  It  had  its  ori- 
gin in  the  necessities  of  disordered  finance,  prostrate  com- 
merce, and  ruined  credit.  Under  its  benign  influences,  these 
great  interests  immediately  awoke,  as  from  the  dead,  and 
sprang  forth  with  newness  of  life.  Every  year  of  its  duration 
has  teemed  with  fresh  proofs  of  its  utility  and  its  blessings  ; 
and  although  our  territory  has  stretched  out  wider  and  wider, 
and  our  population  spread  farther  and  farther,  they  have  not 


64  SPEECH    IN    REPLY   TO    HAYNE. 

outrun  its  protection  or  its  benefits.     It  has  been  to  us  all  a 
copious  fountain  of  national,  social,  and  personal  happiness. 

I  have  not  allowed  myself,  sir,  to  look  beyond  the  Union,  to 
see  what  might  lie  hidden  in  the  dark  recess  behind.  I  have 
not  coolly  weighed  the  chances  of  preserving  liberty  when  the 
bonds  that  unite  us  together  shall  be  broken  asunder.  I  have 
not  accustomed  myself  to  hang  over  the  precipice  of  disunion, 
to  see  whether,  with  my  short  sight,  I  can  fathom  the  depth  of 
the  abyss  below  ;  nor  could  I  regard  him  as  a  safe  counselor 
in  the  affairs  of  this  government,  whose  thoughts  should  be 
mainly  bent  on  considering,  not  how  the  Union  should  be  best 
preserved,  but  how  tolerable  might  be  the  condition  of  the 
people  when  it  shall  be  broken  up  and  destroyed.  "While  the 
Union  lasts,  we  have  high,  exciting,  gratifying  prospects  spread 
out  before  us,  for  us  and  our  children.  Beyond  that  I  seek  not 
to  penetrate  the  veil.  God  grant  that  in  my  day,  at  least,  that 
curtain  may  not  rise  !  God  grant  that  on  my  vision  never 
may  be  opened  what  lies  behind  !  When  my  eyes  shall  be 
turned  to  behold  for  the  last  time  the  sun  in  heaven,  may  I  not 
see  him  shining  on  the  broken  and  dishonored  fragments  of  a 
once  glorious  Union  ;  on  states  dissevered,  discordant,  belliger- 
ent ;  on  a  land  rent  with  civil  feuds,  or  drenched,  it  may  be, 
in  fraternal  blood  !  Let  their  last  feeble  and  lingering  glance 
rather  behold  the  gorgeous  ensign  of  the  republic,  now  known 
and  honored  throughout  the  earth,  still  full  high  advanced,  its 
arms  and  trophies  streaming  in  their  original  luster,  not  a  stripe 
erased  or  polluted,  nor  a  single  star  obscured,  bearing  for  its 
motto,  no  such  miserable  interrogatory  as  "What  is  all  this 
worth?"  nor  those  other  words  of  delusion  and  folly,  "Liberty 
first  and  Union  afterwards  ;"  but  everywhere,  spread  all  over 
in  characters  of  living  light,  blazing  on  all  its  ample  folds,  as 
they  float  over  the  sea  and  over  the  land,  and  in  every  wind 
under  the  whole  heavens,  that  other  sentiment,  dear  to  every 
true  American  heart — Liberty  and  Union,  now  and  forever, 
one  and  inseparable  ! 


ENGLISH  CLASSIC  SERIES, 


Classes  in  English  Literature,  Beading,  Grammar,  etc* 

EDITED    BY   EMINENT    ENGLISH   AND   AMERICAN    SCHOLARS. 


Each  Volume  contains  a  Sketch  of  the  Author's  Life,  Prefatory  and 
Explanatory  Notes,  etc.,  etc. 


1  Byron's    Prophecy    of   Dante. 

(Cantos  I.  and  II.) 

2  Milton's  L'  Allegro,  and  II  Pen- 

seroso. 

3  Lord  Bacon's  Essays,  Civil  and 

Moral.     (Selected.) 

4  Byron's  Prisoner  of  Chlllon. 

5  Moore's      Fire       Worshippers. 

(Lalla  Rookh.    Selected.) 

6  Goldsmith's  Deserted  Tillage. 

7  Scott's     Marmion.        (Selections 
»      from  Canto  VI.) 

8  Scott's  Lay  of  the  Last  Minstrel. 

(Introduction  and  Canto  I.) 

9  Burns'sCotter'sSaturday  Night, 

and  other  Poems. 

10  Crabbe's  The  Village. 

11  Campbell's  Pleasures  of  Hope. 

(Abridgment  of  Part  1.) 

12  Macaulay's  Kssay  on  Banyan's 

Pilgrim's  Progress. 

13  Macaulay's   Armada,   and  other 

Poems. 

14  Shakespeare's  Merchant  of  Ve- 

nice.   (Selections  from   Acts   I., 
III.  .and  IV.) 

15  Goldsmith's  Traveller. 

16  Hogg's  Queen's.  Wake,  and  Kil- 

17  Coleridge's  Ancient  Mariner. 

18  Addison's  Sir  lioger  de  Cover- 

ley. 

19  Gray's     Elegy    in     a    Country 

Churchyard. 
80  Scott's  Lady  of  the  Lake.  (Canto 

381  Shakespeare's  An  You  Like  It 

etc.     (Selections) 

22  Shakespeare's  King  John,  and 

Richard  II.    (Selections.) 

23  Shakespeare's  Henry  IV.,  Hen- 

ry  V.,  Henry  VI.     (Sections.) 
44  Shakespeare's  Henry  VIII.,  and 

Julius  Cafisar.     (Selections) 
!5  Wordsworth's  Excursion.  (Bk.I.) 
26  Pope's  Essay  on  Criticism. 
47  Spenser's  Faerie  Queene.  (Cantos 

I.  ami  II.) 


3O  Tennyson's  Enoch  Arden,  The 
Lotus  Eaters,  Ulysses,  and 
Titbonus. 


(Selec- 
Carol. 

et. 

astings. 


Bunker    Hill    Ora- 


31 Irving's    Sketch    Book 

tions.) 

32  Dickens's      Christmas 

(Condensed.) 

33  Carlyle's  Hero  as  a  Prophet. 

34  Macaulay's  Warren    Hasti 

(Condensed.) 

35  Goldsmith's    Vicar    of    Wake- 

field.    (Condensed  ) 

36  Tennyson's    The    Two   Voices, 

and  a  I>reain  of  Fair  Women. 

37  Memory  Quotations. 

38  Cavalier  Poets. 

39  Dryden's     Alexander's     Feast, 

and  MacFleckiioe. 

40  Keats'  The  Eve  of  St.  Agnes. 

41  Irving's  Legend  of  Sleepy  Hoi* 

low. 

42  Lamb's     Tales      from     Shake- 

speare. 

43  Le  How's  How  to  Teach  Read- 

ing. 

44  Webster' 

tions. 

45  The  Academy    Orthoepist.     A 

Manual  of  Pronunciation. 

46  Milton's    Lycidas,    and    Hymn 

on  the  Nativity. 

47  Bryant's  Thanatopgis,  and  other' 

Poems 

48  Ruskiii's      Modern      Painters. 

(Selections.) 

49  The  Shakespeare  Speaker. 

50  Thackeray's    Roundabout    Pa- 

pers. 

51  Webster's    Oration   on    Adams 

and  Jefferson. 

52  Brown's  R«b  and  His  Friends. 

53  Morris's    Life     and     Death    of 

Jason. 

54  Bnrke's    Speech   on   American 

Taxation. 

55  Pope's  Rape  of  the  Lock. 

56  Tennyson's  Elaine. 

57  Tennyson's  In  Metnoriam. 

58  Church's  Story  of  the  ^Eneid. 

59  Church's  Story  of  the  Iliad. 

60  Swift's     Gulliver's    Voyage    to 

Lilliput. 

61  Macaulay's  Essay  on  Lord  Ba- 

sed ) 


Conden   

62  The  A Icestis  of  Euripides.    En*. 
lish  Version  by  Rev.  R.  Potter,M.  A. 
(Additional  number*  on  next  page.) 


ENGLISH  CLASSIC  SERIES— CONTINUED. 


63  The    Antigone    of    Sophocles. 

English  Version  by  Thos.  Franck- 
lin,  D.D. 

64  Elizabeth    Barrett    Browning. 

(Selected  Poems.) 
85  Robert      Browning.       (Selected 

PQ6LHS  ) 

66  Addison,  The  Spectator.  (Sel'ns.) 

67  Scenes     from     George    Eliot's 

Adam  Bede. 

68  Matthew  Arnold's  Culture  and 

Anarchy. 
39  DeQuincey's  Joan  of  Arc* 

70  Carlyle's  Essay  on  Burns. 

71  Byron's   Childe    Harold's  Pil- 

grimage. 

78  Foe's  Raven,  and  other  Poems. 
73  &  74  Macaulay's    Lord     Olive. 

_JDouble  Number.) 
75  Webster's  Keply  to  Hayne. 


76  &  77  Macaulay's   Lays   of  An- 
cient Rome.    (Double  Number.) 

78  American  Patriotic  Selections  : 

Declaration  of  Independence, 
Washington's  Farewell  Ad- 
dress, Lincoln's  Gettysburg 
Speech,  etc. 

79  &  8O  Scott's  Lady  of  the  Lake. 

(Condensed.) 

81  &  82  Scott's     Marmlon.      (Con- 
densed.) 

83  &  84  Pope's  Essay  on  Man. 

85  Shelley's  Skylark,  Adonais,  and 

other  Poems. 

86  Dickens's       Cricket      on      the 

Hearth. 

87  Spencer's  Philos 

88  Lamb's  Ess 

89  Cowper's  Task,  Book  II. 

90  Wordsworth's  Selected  Poems. 


Philosophy  of  Style, 
says  of  Ella. 


Single  numbers,  32  to  64  pp.    Matting  price,  19  cents  per  copy. 
Deuble  number*,  75  to  128  pp.    Mailing  price,  a*  cent*  per  copy. 

SPECIAL  PRICES  TO  TEACH  ERS. 


SPECIAL  NUMBERS. 
Milton's  Paradise  Lost.    Book  I.    With  portrait  and  bld- 

eranbical  sketch  of  Milton,  essay  on  his  genius,  epitome  of  the  views  of  the  best- 
inoVn  critics,  Milton's  verse,  argument,  and  fulf  introductory  and  explanatory 
notes.  Bound  in  boards.  Mailing  price,  SO  cent*. 


Milton's  Paradise  Liost.  Books  I.  and  II.  With  portrait  and 
biographical  sketch  of  Milton,  his  verse;  essay  on  his  genius,  epitome  of  the  views 
ef  flxe  bestrknown  critics,  argument,  and  full  introductory  ami  axplanatory  notes. 
Bound  in  boards.  Mailing  priee,  4O  cents. 


Wykes's  Shakespeare  Reader, 

ays  of  Shakespeare,  -with  introductory  r»— — 
.d  explanatory  notes.     By  C.  H.  WTKJH 
3S  cents. 


Jeing  extracts  from  the 
and  grammatical,  historical, 
pp.;  16mo,  cloth.    Mailing  price, 


Chaucer's  The  Canterbury  Tales.   The  Prologue.   The 

text  collated  with  the  seven  oldest  MSS.,  a  portrait  and  biographical  sketch  of  the 
author,  introductory  notices,  grammar,  critical  and  explanatory  notes,  index  to 
obsolete  and  difficult  words,  argument  and  characters  of  the  prologue,  brief  history 
of  English  language  to  time  of  Chaucer,  and  glossary.  Bound  in  boards.  Mailing 
price,  35  cents.  


Chaucer's  The  Squieres  Tale.  With  portrait  and  biograph- 
ical sketch  ef  author,  introduction  to  his  grammar  and  versification, .glossary,  ex- 
amination papers,  and  full  explanatory  notes.  Bound  iu  boards.  Mailing  price, 
35  cents. 


Chaucer's  The  Knigfhtes  Tale.  With  portrait  and  bio- 
graphical sketch  of  author,  essay  on  his  language,  history  of  the  English  lamguage 
to  time  of  Chaucer,  glossary,  and  full  explanatory  notes.  Bound  in  beards.  Mail- 


ing  pric 


Goldsmith's  She  Stoops  to  Conquer.    With 

sketch  of  author,  introduction,  dedication,  Oarrick's  Prole 
intended  epilogues,  and  full  explanatory  notes.    Bound  in 


Fuu.  DESCRIPTIVE  CATALOGUE  SENT  ON 


1205  02576  2913 

THE  LIBRARY 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

iSiSufr 

AA    000943251    9 


